High Court Judge erred in holdina that the RM's court had jurisdiction to deliberate and decided on those matters" ... (p. 18) For reasons we have assigned, we find and hold that the subordinate court magistrate had no jurisdiction to deliberate and decide the matters which were raised before it by the respondents' advocates. Therefore, the appeal has merit and we allow it. Consequently, we quash the decision of the High Court, and direct the RM's court to proceed with the case from where it ended before the institution of the application for revision in the High Court." (P. 19) From the foregoing decision, it is certain to us that both the principle of legality, on one hand and plain meaning statutory interpretation principle, on the other, were amongst others, applied in arriving at the Court decision. For the sake of clarity, it is not offensive for us to amplify that-the principle of legality operates on the parable that since crimes are created by law, itis a legal prerequisite that their creation must be founded on a system of law prescribing the substantive criminal law (prohibited or required actions) and the law of criminal procedure (prescribed steps for law enforcement) written down in black and white for compliance to avoid abuse of powers. Under this principle, Judges and Magistrates have no power to penalize conduct merely because it is in their view immoral, anti-social or in some way undesirable but rather should be guided by law and not by the decisions of individual men. Now as to what extent, if any, the decision in Farid Hadi Ahmed's case (supra) with the petitioner counsel's quoting general allegations in advancing the petitioner's case before this Court are matters that will be resolved in the due course. Beginning with the complaint mounted against section 9(1) of POTA that it offends articles 18(b), (c) & (d) and 22 (1) &(2) of the Constitution for criminalizing a mere possession or access of information obtained Page 26 of 37 in