At that point, Ms Nshemereirwe came to her colleague’s aid and told the Court that they were relying on, and we should, as well, on the affidavit evidence of the Principal Immigration Officer, specifically the averment that under Section 52, Immigration Officers were under no obligation to give reasons. 90. Our consideration of this evidence and submissions posed a number of problems. In the first place this was now a court of law, not an immigration desk. While it may be that the immigration officials believed, albeit mistakenly, that they were under no obligation to give the Applicant reasons for denying him entry, we are convinced that, as an administrative authority, at an international airport, in this day and age, they had an obligation, to have a record of, or, at the very least, to know those reasons and, consequently, we would have expected them to disclose them in the Court. The law, this time, put them under obligation to disclose. The Rules of this Court permit the conduct of proceedings in camera, for sufficient cause. In spite of demands and prodding, Counsel did not disclose any reasons. We formed the opinion that there were none. 91. Secondly, much as we perused and combed through Section 52, (and this is why we reproduced it verbatim) we did not find any provision that empowers Immigration Officers in Uganda not to give reasons to persons whom they deem to be prohibited immigrants and/or deny entry into the country. We found no provision that prohibits them from doing so or penalises them for doing so. On the contrary, we found that the Section shows that none of the processes leading up to a decision that one is or is not a prohibited immigrant under any of the categories, can be concluded without informing the immigrant of the reasons and hearing him in his defence or in explanation. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 42