70. We have carefully considered the arguments of both Counsel, examined the law on the subject and we will examine the issues starting with whether the actions of the Republic of Uganda complained of were in conformity with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. We will examine each action. Denial of Entry 71. As shown above, Counsel for the Respondent maintained that the Applicant was handled according to the law and was accorded the full benefit of due process. However, on analysing the whole chain of actions complained of and how they happened, with profound respect, we do not agree with the reasoning of Counsel for the Respondent. 72. “Due process”, according to Black’s Law Dictionary (supra) at p.575 is defined as “The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case”. We adopt this definition. 73. The process that Counsel claimed amounted to due process i.e. filling an immigration card, taking finger prints and pictures and “a discussion” with the desk officer before being found unworthy to enter Uganda, is at variance with the above definition. The Respondent did not show us that the immigration officials had anything against the Applicant. We were not shown that he was informed of any wrong they were holding against him. His treatment seems to have been a result of caprice rather than coherently thought out decisions. We agonised over the Respondent’s failure to disclose, even in Court, what it was the immigration officials had against him that warranted the harsh treatment. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 34