judges in their own causes. The said Regulations are also being attacked for imposing criminal penalties without room of appeal. In the respondents’ joint statement in reply, all the grounds advanced by the applicants in their statement are denied. On ground No. 1, learned senior state attorney for the respondents contended that the 1st respondent in promulgating the said Regulations acted intra vires and in accordance with principle of legality and natural justice. It is further contended on part of the respondents that Regulation 4 was made to elaborate the regulatory powers of the 2nd respondent in respect of section 4 of the EPOCA and the 2nd Schedule to the EPOCA. As regards regulation 5 (d), (e), (f) and (g) and regulations 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of the Regulations, learned senior state attorney told this court that the regulations are aimed at elaborating the function of the 2nd respondent as provided for in the 2nd Schedule to the EPOCA and that the regulations were therefore, enacted to give effect to the provisions of the parent Act. On ground No. 2, it is was averred on part of the respondents that regulations 16 and 17 of the Regulations in question are in accordance with paragraph 18 of the 2nd Schedule to the EPOCA. As regards ground No. 3, learned senior state attorney argued that regulations 5 (1) (e) and 9 (d) elaborate the functions of the 2nd respondent in relation to the regulation of online content providers and 8