current provisions of the Public Order and Security Act are significantly different. The court pointed to the following features of section 6 of the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act that cumulatively led the court to conclude that the fundamental rights in question had been excessively invaded: 1. The discretionary power of the regulating authority is uncontrolled. 2. Before imposing a ban on a public procession the regulating authority is not obliged to take into account whether the likelihood of a breach of peace or public order could be averted by attaching conditions upon the conduct of the procession. 3. The effect of the provision is to deny these primary rights unless it can be shown that the procession is likely to cause or lead to a breach of the public peace or public disorder. 4. The holding of a public procession with a permit is criminalized irrespective of the likelihood or occurrence of any threat to the public safety or public order, or inconvenience to persons not participating. Surprisingly, however, it was only in 2002 that the notorious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act was repealed and replaced by the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11.17]. This new Act sought to replace the repressive provisions on assembly and protest in the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act with provisions that would supposedly allow peaceful assembly and protest subject to the police being notified of impending protests to allow the police to provide security during the protests to prevent outbreaks of violence. Section 26(3) provides that where the police receive credible information that a proposed public demonstration will result in public disorder or extensive property damage, the police may hold consultations with the organizers to arrive at an agreement on the taking of appropriate measures to avoid these consequences and thereafter to allow the demonstrations to go ahead. However, the provisions of this Act have been frequently misinterpreted to mean that protests could only go ahead if prior permission has been granted by the police and whereas public demonstrations by supporters of the ruling party have been freely allowed, even without prior notification to the police, public demonstrations by persons protesting about government actions have been blocked or forcibly broken up. Section 27(1) of this Act, goes much further and allows for the banning of public demonstrations. This provision reads: “If a regulating authority for any area believes on reasonable grounds that the powers conferred by section 26 will not be sufficient to prevent public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions or public demonstrations or any class thereof in the area or any part thereof, he may issue an order prohibiting, for a specified period not exceeding one month, the holding of all public demonstrations or any class of public demonstrations in the area or part thereof concerned.” It is a criminal offence for a person to organise or assist in organising or take part in or attend any procession or public demonstration where public demonstrations have been banned. The maximum sentence for this offence is imprisonment for one year. The other provisions in this section deal with what the police must do before issuing a banning order. Where it is practicable to do so, the regulating authority must  cause a notice of the proposed banning order in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area concerned and to be given to any person whom the regulating