Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 In addition to failing to pass the test on fairness, necessity, and reasonableness, there is another feature of s 27 of POSA that I find disturbing. It has no time frame or limitation as to the number of times the regulating authority can invoke the powers granted to him or her under the section. Thus, a despotic regulating authority, could lawfully invoke these powers without end. This could be achieved by publishing notices prohibiting demonstrations back to back as long as each time the period of the ban is for one month or less. It thus has the potential of negating or nullifying the rights not only completely but perpetually. DISPOSITION On the basis of the foregoing, it is my finding that s 27 of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11:17] is unconstitutional. Section 175 (6) (b) permits a court declaring a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution to suspend the declaration of invalidity to allow the competent authority to correct the defect. It is just and equitable in my view that the second and third respondents be allowed time to attend to the defects in s 27 of the Public Order and Security Act if they are so inclined. Regarding costs, while the declaration that I make has the effect of upholding the contentions of the applicants in the High Court, counsel for the respondent did concede that the challenged law was excessive in its effect. Further, the answer to the question referred to this Court by the Supreme Court is an important one to all the parties before this Court. An order that each party bears its own costs will in my view be appropriate. In the result I make the following order: 1. The question referred to this Court by the Supreme Court is answered as follows: 17