even how the impugned provisions are arbitrary. He thus implored this Court to dismiss the petition with costs notwithstanding the provision of Rule 18(1) which provides that the award of costs shall be in the discretion of the Court because the petitioner has not by any iota of evidence demonstrated that he ought to be exempted from costs in pursuit of the present petition. In rejoinder, the petitioner's counsel submitted that, the impugned provisions do not meet the imposed conditions, hence, unjustifiable in purview of what the Court of Appeal held in the cited case of Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General (supra) that, it is the fundamental rights which are fundamental and not the restrictions. Counsel further referred us to the decision in A & Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 where Lord Hoffman underscored at page 97 that the real threat to life of the nation in the sense of people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws. They further rejoined at page 4 and argued that, POTA makes the Muslim community "feel targeted" for it targets Muslims, devout Muslims, Muslim clerics, sheikhs and Muslim leaders. They added at page 9 that, the Courts have not been helpful to suspects charged under POTA. To that effect, they cited the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Republic vs Farid Hadi Ahmed and 21 others, Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2015, CAT, unreported. The petitioner's counsel maintained that the impugned provisions suppress fundamental rights safeguarded under the Constitution by targeting unintended actions, acts, conducts and people to the detriment of Page 12 of 37