Although the witness is entitled to credence as per Goodluck Kyando v. Republic [2006] TLR 363 unless there is reason to doubt his credibility. We think it is unsafe to assume that the Clubhouse is accessible via VPN in the absence of a demonstration to assist the court to visualise and confirm the same. In lieu of our observation hereinabove the Petitioner has failed to discharge his burdens of proof. There is no proof that the Clubhouse is being blocked or restricted in Tanzania. The OONI report has failed to convince us that it is a conclusive proof of alleged restriction of Clubhouse in the country. The Petitioner's view that Clubhouse is available upon using VPNs in Tanzania has neither been disputed nor contradicted by the Respondents, however, that does not prove the allegation in the absence of credible evidence. We have held that the restriction and access through VPN were not demonstrated. It is not clear whether that was left to the court on its own to test the accessibility of Clubhouse through VPN. This was a fit case for the Petitioner to demonstrate before the court how this technology works. What is more, is that even if it would have been demonstrated that does not prove that there are restrictions done by the 2nd Respondent. The Respondents have commented that VPNs used must be registered to address illegal content in cyberspace. We do not think that the fact that the Respondents have failed to properly respond to this allegation means that the same has been proved. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that Clubhouse is accessible only via VPN. Further to that, the court has declared the OONI report to be incredible as it is loaded with suspicion of restriction of Clubhouse. A case cannot be decided based on suspicion. Having regard to the fact that the evidence of the Petitioner regarding ongoing restrictions has not been contradicted in any material respect is n o t a clear indicator that the Petitioner has discharged his burden of proof. Even in absence of contradictory evidence from the opponent (in this case the Respondents) this Court cannot abdicate its duty to subject evidence to analysis and consider its credibility. We have held that the 19