106.
We think that whether it was Kenya Airways which took him into custody as
the Notice requested, or it was the Immigration officials who held him for some
time and Kenya Airways the rest of the time, is not material. What we find
material is that it was all done in execution of the illegal Notice of the Principal
Immigration Officer. Without it, he would have been attending the meeting with
Uganda’s Chief Justice or remain a free man in Kampala. Consequently, our
view is that once the illegal decision to declare the Applicant a prohibited
immigrant was made and the Notice to remove him from Uganda was issued
the rest of the actions were merely foregone conclusions.
107.
What matters is that he was not a free man, and that his Treaty guaranteed
freedom of movement within a Partner State was cut short as a result of the
actions and decisions of the Partner State’s immigration officials, which
actions were illegal under the Treaty, the Protocol and national law. The act of
pinning Kenya Airways with responsibility for bringing a prohibited immigrant
into Uganda narrowed the Applicant’s possibilities to one, namely, that he
would remain under some custody until he boarded the next available Kenya
Airways flight to Nairobi. The detention instruction was complete when the
illegal Notice was issued, not when he was put into whichever custody that he
was put.
108.
Detention is indeed deprivation of liberty. When it is illegal it is not only an
infringement of the freedom of movement, but also an act that undermines
one’s dignity. Furthermore, when a citizen of a Partner State is illegally
detained in another Partner State, with no right to be informed why or to be
heard in his defence, and the reasons cannot be disclosed, even in a court of
law, it is not just a violation of the Treaty, it is indeed a threat to integration.
REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011
Page 47
اختر الفقرة المستهدفة3
الاتصال بفقرة
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
أضف إلى جدول المحتويات