d. that the citizens of the other Partner States are allowed to exit the territory of the Partner State without restrictions. 82. The Applicant was part of a 14 member delegation, on schedule to meet the Honourable Chief Justice of Uganda. It is evident from the visas in his passport that he had visited Uganda on at least three occasions between 01.02.2011 and 13.4.2011. It is amply clear, therefore, that he was not a stranger in Uganda. He was the only member of the delegation who received adverse treatment. Short of a reasonable explanation of this treatment by the Respondent, this failure to treat him equally with the other members of the same delegation, would amount to discrimination. The Respondent, in our view, failed to explain it. 83. We have discussed the import of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty at length elsewhere in this judgment, and we reiterate that position here. The Applicant travelled to a Partner State that is bound by the principles of good governance enshrined in Article 6(d), and had a legitimate expectation of being treated in accordance therewith. We find, however, that the treatment he was subjected to was adverse and discriminatory. 84. That he was singled out of a delegation, declared a prohibited immigrant, denied entry, returned to Kenya, without being furnished with reasons why and without being heard in his defence was clearly at variance with and in violation of Uganda’s obligation to adhere to the rule of law, accountability, transparency as well as the recognition and protection of human rights in accordance with the Charter, as provided under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and 7(2) of the Protocol. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 38