In response, the respondent through Mr. Daniel Chacha Nyakiha, learned State Attorney from the Solicitor General's Office filed Counter Affidavit and reply to the petition. He deposed that, POTA does not contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution as alleged by the petitioner adding that, the aforementioned rights guaranteed under the Constitution are not absolute because they are subjected to certain limitations which are in tandem with the well-recognized coexisting individual and collective rights. Hearing of the petition was conducted by written submissions whereas parties complied with the filing schedules, hence, this Judgment. The petitioner was represented by MISNAK LAW CHAMBERS AND NASSORO & CO. ADVOCATES that assigned Messrs. Juma Nassoro and Daimu Halfani to take conduct of the matter in Court while the respondent was represented by the Solicitor General's Office through Mr. Nyakiha, learned State Attorney. Although we may not be able to repeat each and every substance contained in their respective resourceful and thoughtful submissions, we sincerely appreciate and commend them for their submissions which without doubt will substantially be basis of our analysis and findings. Addressing the merits of the petition, the petitioner's counsel submitted that, challenging POTA finds basis in Daudi Pete v. Attorney General [1993] T.L.R. 22 where the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held: "The law which seeks to limit or derogate from the basic right of the individual or grounds of public interest will have special requirements, first, such a law must be lawful in the sense that it is not arbitrary. It should make adequate safeguards against arbitrary decisions and provide effective controls against abuse by those in authority when using the law. Secondly, the limitation imposed by such law must not Page 4 of 37