interests, and common interest of the concerned society as guaranteed under article 26 of the Constitution of URT. Moreover, to ensure that power is not arbitrary it provides for other safeguards under section 10 of the Act to ensure that the power given under section 9 (b) is not abused by the one who is authorised to exercise it. To some extent, we agree with the State Attorney that like any other fundamental rights, the right to information is not absolute as it is subject to the limitations enshrined under Article 29, 30 (1) of the Constitution and Section 7(3) of the Media Services Act. However, we take note that, it is fundamental rights which are fundamental and not their restrictions. Thus, by virtue of Article 18 and 26 of the Constitution, we are of the settled mind that the Media Act is to safeguard the purpose to ensure a corollary of the reality of co­ existence of rights and duties of the individual on the one hand and the collective or communitarian rights and duties of the society on the other as the principles established in the case of Kukutia Ole Pumbuni and Daudi Pete (supra). On the basis of the above observation, the argument that this law has failed to meet test of "proportionality text" as argued by the counsel for the Petitioner is baseless. 20