delay or curtail their full, complete and uniform application in the Partner States v) That under the Protocol, Uganda or any other Partner State of the EAC can limit the guaranteed right of free movement of a citizen of any Partner State, such as the Applicant, only pursuant to duly invoking the provisions of Article 7 (5) of the Protocol and declaring or notifying the same to other Partner States and the EAC Secretary General in accordance with Article 8 (3) (c) of the Treaty and Article 7 (6) of the Protocol. It is his contention that this is the only residual sovereignty left to Partner States of the EAC within the EAC. Vi) That the unsubstantiated insinuation that the Applicant is a threat to the security of the people of the EAC or a threat to the national interest of Uganda, not having been notified to the EAC Secretary General and the Partner States in accordance with Articles 8(3)(c) of the Treaty and 7(6) of the Protocol, remains a unilateral action that cannot prevail over the Applicant’s guaranteed right of free movement within the EAC. 39. Ms Peruth Nshemereirwe, for the Respondent, argued issues ii and iv together. In a nutshell, she submitted as follows: i) That neither the Treaty nor the Protocol takes away the Sovereignty of the Republic of Uganda to deny entry to unwanted persons who are citizens of the EAC. ii) That sovereignty is the supreme political authority of an independent state and, as such, Uganda is an independent state whose sovereignty was not submerged in the creation of the EAC REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 21