iii) That Article 104 of the Treaty is subject to the provisions of the Protocol and Article 7(5) thereof gives Uganda a right to restrict movement of persons into Uganda on grounds of public policy, public security or public health and that according to affidavit evidence tendered, the Applicant was denied entry into Uganda under Article 7 (5) of the Protocol. iv) That the Applicant’s argument that Uganda has not complied with the provisions of Article 7(6) to notify the Secretary General of the EAC and The Republic of Kenya about the Applicant’s denial of entry is a mere allegation for which the Applicant showed no evidence of non-compliance. v) That Article 7 (3) of the Protocol provides for compliance with national laws in guaranteeing the protection of citizens, Article 7 (9) provides that implementation of the Protocol shall be in accordance to the EACM (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations specified in ANNEX 1 to the Protocol. That Article 5 (1) of those Regulations provides that a citizen who wishes to enter or exit the territory of another Partner State shall do so at entry or exit points designated in accordance with national laws of the Partner State and shall comply with the established immigration procedures. It was her contention that the key point in the above provisions is “in accordance with national laws” and is in consonance with the concept of sovereignty. vi) That affidavit evidence on record showed that the national law which was relied on in handling the Applicant was the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap 66, and that vide paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit of Charles Okello Cowards, REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 22