Judiciary has the duty of implementing the Constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. When the government acts to take away the fundamental rights of citizenship, the safeguards of the Constitution should be examined with special diligence. The provisions of the constitution are not time worn adages or hollow shibboleths. They are vital, living principles that authorize and limit government powers in our nation. They are rules of government. When the constitutionality of an Act of congress is challenged in this court, we must apply these rules. If we do not the words of the constitution become little more than good advice. When it appears that an Act of congress conflicts with one of those provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount demands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate the challenged legislation. We must apply these limits as the constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of Constitutional Adjudication.” These remarks were cited with approval by this court in Major General David Tinyefuza (Supra) and this court concluded thus:“we would respectfully agree that it is the duty of this court to enforce the paramount demands of the Constitution. The current thrust of highly persuasive opinions from courts in the Commonwealth is to apply a generous and purposive construction of the constitution that gives effect to and recognition of fundamental human rights and freedoms. We believe that this is in harmony with the threefold injunctions contained in Article 20(2) commanding the respect of; upholding and promoting human rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in chapter 4 by all organs and agencies of government and by all persons. To hold otherwise, may be to suggest that Articles 20(2) is idle and vain.” (Sic) The Constitutional interpretation principle of harmonization adopted by this court in Tinyefunza’s case (supra) is a well known Constitutional construction principle. It is also very relevant to this petition. Manyindo, D.C.J (as he then was), observed of that principle as follows:“…….the entire Constitution has to be read as an integrated whole and no one particular provision destroying the other but each sustaining the other. This is the rule of harmony, the rule of completeness and exhaustiveness and the rule of paramouncey of the Constitution.” On appeal (Attorney General Vs Tinyefunza supra) oder J.S.C. expressed the same view in this way: in other words 28