the proper inference from that allegation was that no evidence of mismanagement existed. To buttress this contention, Counsel stated that an official audit conducted on the account of CEBAC did not raise any irregularities. 67. Furthermore, it is his stance that there was no nexus between Mr. Rufyikiri as President of CEBAC duly elected by the General Assembly of CEBAC and the Government of Burundi. That therefore, there was no reason for the Government’s action when Mr. Rufyikiri was properly accounting to the Assembly of CEBAC, an independent body, which never complained over his alleged misconduct. 68. Counsel also contended that the 1st Respondent had alleged, but had not presented any evidence in proof, that Mr. Rufyikiri was about to flee Burundi so as to defeat justice. On that, he maintained that the prohibition to go out of Burundi was a penalty under Burundian law meted out by a Court and not the Prosecutor General who did it in utter disregard of the rule of law. 69. On this matter, he concluded by submitting that since the contents of the Applicant’s Reply had not been contradicted in any way, they represented the correct version of the events and were in proof of “the scheme against good governance, particularly, the rule of law.” 74. Regarding the disbarment of Mr. Rufyikiri from the Roll of Advocates, the Applicant’s Counsel submitted that it was because of a press conference held by Mr. Rufyikiri, on 29th October 2013, in his capacity as the President of the Burundi Bar Association and in which he raised issues of lack of good governance, democracy and abuse of human rights, that the Government reacted the following day of 30th October 2013 by commencing the disbarring process against Mr. Rufyikiri. REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 22