13. Save for the above admission, the Respondent denies that the Applicant was arrested, restrained or detained by immigration authorities and states, instead, that the Applicant was validly denied entry in accordance with Article 7 (5) of the Protocol, that the Respondent was under no legal obligation to give the Applicant reasons for the denial of entry and that the Applicant was handed over to Kenya Airways, with instructions to take him into its custody and ensure that he is removed from the non-permissible area and returned to Kenya on its first available flight. 14. The Respondent also denies that the actions of the immigration officers at the airport on the material date and time contravened Articles 6(d), 7(2), and 104 of the Treaty, Article 7 of the Protocol or violated Articles 2,6,7,9,10,11 and 12 of the Charter, and contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce Articles 2, 6, 7,9,10, 11 and 12 of the Charter. 15. The Respondent further avers that Section 52 of the Uganda’s Citizenship and Immigration Control Act is not in contravention of the Treaty or the Protocol, that neither the Treaty nor the Protocol takes away the sovereignty of the member states to make decisions in the best interest of their national security and, in response to allegations that Section 52 of Uganda’s Immigration Act bestows unchecked and overarching discretionary power to declare people, including East African Citizens, prohibited immigrants, further avers that under Article 76(2) of the Protocol, implementation of the Common Market shall be progressive. 16. The Respondent finally avers that, in the alternative and without prejudice to prior averments, the action undertaken by the Government of Uganda to deny the Applicant entry into Uganda was lawful, bonafide, justifiable and in the security interest of the people of the East African Community. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 7