absence and without the consent of the Secretary. They aver that by acting that way, the Respondent State has interfered with the freedom of association of the South Sudan Bar Association and has violated the rights of the lawyer to freedom of profession, as well as Section 43 (2) of the Advocates Act, 2013 on the independence of the Bar Association and thus, an assault on the right to free association, the independence of the bar and the freedom of profession and violate Article 8 and 10 of the Charter. 111. The Complainants support their submission in this regard by referring to The Principles and Guidelines on the Right fair Trial which and legal assistance in Africa, which states that: 'Governments shall ensure that lawyers: (a) are able to perform all of their profession functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics. C;harges'~~,.complaints made against lawyers in their professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under appropriate procedures. Lawyers shall have the right to a fair hearing, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers shall be brought before an impartial disciplinary, committee established by the legal profession, before an independent statutory authority, or before a court, and shall be subject to an independent judicial review". Alleged violation of the right to freedo~:'l'~fmoveme~;t and residence and the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country (Article 12(1) and (2» 112. The Complainants submit that they are being forced to remain in hiding, to avoid further abuses by the police and the soldiers, as their land is being occupied by the soldiers, and they could not even visit it since the violent raid on 27/11/2021. The passport of the complainants' lawyer was confiscated without a Court Order contrary to Section.Iz (4) of the Passport & Immigration Act, 2011, which states that Directorat~ may;'at aily!tIme, cancel or refuse to issue an Ordinary Passport if it is approved that- (a) The applicant or holder thereof provided false information in the application; or (b) the holder has renounced his or her South Sudanese Nationality. Thecondition is that, it must be approved in a final court process and order, issued in)a fair trial, if it is ascertained that the applicant has provided false information in the application for new passport or has renounced his South Sudanese nationality. ~ ON HU41 ' 113. They state that in this case, the complainants' lawyer (a) is no W~gef~.tA.R passport. He has a valid passport that is issued by the author it l8td ~s if f~ its intended legal purpose, including several travels abroad; (~~~s ot!'~You ced. or abundant his South Sudanese nationality. Thus, the unila\~al eci~ion--of pe' Director in conf.iscat~ng the passport .is illegal un~er the S~utFt;(~':ldanl1.la ',/'of Passport & Immigration, and the ongomg year-old Illegal travei.:b~n~.0nstr ates a " t. 'L":.·.{ \)\. .ccontinuing arbitrary detention and a continuing restriction of mov$lent, because the Complainant is being held in one location without his consent. ' 77tll Ordinary Session of the ACHPR 20