98. We find it pertinent to point out here that, at no point, throughout the Applicant’s ordeal was such or any allegation of wrongdoing levelled against him. Again, without substantiation, we were of opinion that the assertion was of no ascertainable value. We think that if the Respondent had evidence of wrong doing against the Applicant he would have been prosecuted in Uganda. This Reference was another crucial opportunity to come clean. The documentary evidence he produced to show that he is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and also a human rights activist and, therefore, a law abiding citizen of a Partner State, were not challenged. 100. Curiously while the Principal Immigration Officer averred in his affidavit that the Applicant was denied entry in the security interest of East African citizens, the way they handled him pointed in the direction of an individual known to be harmless to the Region. Indeed, we wonder why a person known or suspected to be a risk to Regional security would, once found in one Partner State, not be arrested and charged but just be left to await the next flight to return him to another Partner State, and, once there, remain at large. 101. We entirely understand the terror attacks referred to and we condemn them in the strongest of terms. But even then, for Uganda to take out the consequences of that tense situation on the Applicant the minimum we would expect was evidence that he was a suspect or was in some way connected. Surprisingly the Respondent did not even attempt to allege anything against him in that regard. 102. From evaluation of the evidence, it does not seem to us that the Applicant was a threat or would have failed to explain his presence in or wish to enter Uganda, given the chance, but his fate was sealed the moment the Immigration authorities chose to interpret Section 52 as not obliging them to inform him of any reasons or to hear his side of the story. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 45