63. On whether the actions complained of were in conformity with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty, Counsel submitted that the Respondent’s confirmation that the Applicant was denied entry and orders issued to return him to Kenya as a prohibited immigrant, exhibited that he had been declared a prohibited immigrant. He submitted further that he had shown that the Applicant was not given any reasons for any of the adverse actions taken against him and that the Respondent’s confirmation, in replying affidavits, that immigration officials were under no obligation to give reasons to the Applicant, confirm that he was not informed why adverse actions were taken against him. 64. It was Counsel’s further submission that in light of the Applicant’s guaranteed right of free movement within the EAC under the Treaty and the Protocol, and his right of redress under Article 54(2) of the Protocol, the Respondent was obliged to accord him natural justice through a legal process that adhered to the rule of law, accountability, transparency and protection of human rights in accordance with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 65. Counsel disputed the Respondent’s assertion that the process that the Applicant went through by filling in a card, lining up and waiting to present his travel documents to the immigration control officials at Entebbe Airport, amounts to a legal and administrative process. He contended that this process does not qualify as a hearing as known to the law and natural justice. Counsel further contended, that the reason the Respondent gave for denying the Applicant entry, i.e. that it was in the security interests of the people of East Africa, is a matter that cannot rest with an immigration official at the airport counter as the competent authority to determine after filing in a card, lining up and waiting to present travel documents. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 32