"Fundamental rights are subject to limitation. To treat them as being absolute is to invite anarchy in society. Those rights can be limited, but the limitations must not be arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate to any claim of State interest." He also reminded the Court that the Court of Appeal held in the case of Julius Inshengoma Francis Ndyanabo v. Attorney General (supra) and AG v. Jeremia Mtobesya, CA Civil Appeal NO.65/2016 (Unreported) that, until the contrary is proved, a legislation is presumed to be Constitutional adding that, the Constitutional construction and interpretation of a Statute should receive such construction as it will make it operative and not inoperative. And that, that the presumption as to the constitutionality of a Statute can be reversed only where the contrary is proved as held in Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General (supra) that such proof must be beyond reasonable doubt which is not the case in the present petition. Mr Nyakiha also referred the Court to the observation made by Dr. Durga Das Basu in his book titled: Shorter Constitution of India, 12th Ed who stated at page 104 that"there cannot be any such thing as absolute or uncontrolled liberty wholly free from restraint for that would lead to anarch and disorder. The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed to the governing authority of the country to be essential to the safety, health, peace, general order and moral of the community." Mr Nyakiha submitted that, the position held by Dr. Durga Das Basu above and in the case of Kukutia Ole Pumbun and another v. Attorney General and another (supra) render the complaints against the impugned sections of POTA unfounded and the Court should find the petitioner to have failed to prove how the impugned provisions of POTA have affected him or Page 11 of 37