117. The Applicant argued that the Section is in violation because, one, it does not provide for the right of due process before a person is declared a prohibited immigrant. Secondly, that it does not provide for a distinction in treatment between EAC citizens and other immigrants. Thirdly that it does not recognize that limitations can only be imposed pursuant to the Protocol; and finally, that it does not provide for the duty to inform other Partner States when a Partner State imposes limitations. 118. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that there is no uniform EAC law on the movement of persons and that it is an area regulated in accordance with national law. 119. We have shown above that we disagree with the assertion that Section 52 does not provide for the right to due process. We reiterate our position. We have shown, as well, that Community Law in this area is very much part of the national law in Uganda. The argument of the Respondent that there is no East African Community uniform law on the free movement of persons is, therefore, erroneous. Indeed, Article 7 (9) of the Common Market Protocol provides that the implementation of the freedom of movement of persons shall be in accordance with the Freedom of Movement of Persons Regulations. We have observed earlier that Regulation 2 provides that the implementation process of Article 7 of the Protocol shall be transparent, accountable, fair, predictable and consistent with the provisions of the Protocol. 120. While we, respectfully, agree with the Applicant’s critique of Section 52, we are of the opinion that the provisions cited no longer have force of law regarding citizens of partner states and are, therefore, not inconsistent with Treaty provisions. 121. We have found and held, in Issues ii and iv, that upon enactment of the Treaty and, subsequently, the Protocol, they became part of national law and law applicable in Uganda as of their dates of entry into force. We reiterated, as REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 53