the Applicant was handled in accordance with the law and he was neither confined nor detained as alleged. vii) That under the above said Ugandan law, immigration officers are empowered under its Section 52, to deny the Applicant or any other person entry into Uganda and are not under any obligation to give reasons. She contended, therefore, that the Applicant was clearly dealt with and denied entry in accordance with national law. viii) That the cited regulations on free movement of persons under the Protocol are part of the EAC Treaty under Article 151 thereof, that the actions of the Respondent were in conformity with Articles 104 and 7(5) of the Treaty and Protocol respectively, and that, flowing from that, she contended, there was no contravention and or breach of the Treaty. 40. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We entirely agree, as we think both parties do, that Uganda is an independent sovereign state whose power to deny entry to unwanted persons who are citizens of EAC Partner States was not submerged with the coming into force of the Treaty and the Protocol, but still exists, so long it is exercised in accordance with the requirements of the law. Indeed it was the stance of Counsel for the Respondent that, in the exercise of her sovereignty Uganda denied the entry to the Applicant in accordance with Article 7(5) of the Protocol. 41. What we find to be in contention in the instant Reference, however, are two things namely; the extent of Uganda’s sovereignty, given the provisions of Sections 52 and 66(4) of Uganda’s Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Articles 104 and 7 of the Treaty and Protocol respectively, and the application of those provisions in the matter of the Applicant. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 23