0s0 910 iv. "... any immigration officer or any porice officer may... without warrant, arrest any prohibited immigrant ...', (Section 12(1) of the lmmigration Act); V "Subject to subsections 2 and 3, no person to whom this section applies shall enter Tanzania ... or remain in Tanzania unless a) he is in possession of a valid passport; and b) he is the holder of ... a residence permit issued under the provisions of this Act; or c) he is the holder of ... a pass issued under the provisions of this Act,,. (Section 15(1) of the lmmigration Act). 67. Second, the Respondent State alleges that it did not curtail the Applicant,s freedom of movement arbitrarily as it acted to implement the High Court judgment in civil case No. 118 of 2007 Lucien lkili Rashid v. Musa Rubanda, Jerome Msewa, Permanent secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Attomey General, where that court held that "... at the time of his arrest, even during hearing of this case, the plaintiff had no valid passport, a resident permit or pass,'and that he "therefore, was and still is a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of Section 10(1)(h)of the lmmigration Act". 68. Finally, the Respondent state challenges two more claims by the Applicant. The first claim relates to the destruction of the Applicant's documents by agents of the Respondent State, which the latter submits must be dismissed as the Appticant failed to discharge the onus of proof. concerning the second claim by the Applicant that he was deported to prevent him from pursuing his case, the Respondent State contends that it is baseless and should be dismissed since the Applicant admitted in civil case No. 118 of 2007 that he does not have the required documents. 69. The issue for determination is whether the Applicant's arrest at the time and in the circumstances recounted earlier constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of movement protected by Article 12(1) of the Charter, which provides that "Every rL t- l8 &