Failing this, once they decided to infringe upon the Applicant’s rights and liberties as recognised by the Protocol, they ought to have guaranteed his right to redress. This entailed, in our view, a duty to give the Applicant sufficient reasons for denying him entry, declaring him a prohibited immigrant and removing him from Uganda. Equally importantly, they had a duty to afford him a fair opportunity to be heard, and, as they made their decisions about him, to take into consideration whatever he had to say. These, in our view, are basic indicators of due process, are the hall marks of the rule of law and they distinguish a potentially just and fair process from a potentially unjust and unfair one. Worthy of underscoring also is the fact that the Applicant was owed these things not as favours from anyone but as hallowed rights guaranteed by the Treaty. The provisions of its own national law, even if they existed, could not exempt the Republic of Uganda from this Community law obligation. 77. What the Applicant proved, and the Respondent failed to disprove, is that he was not aware, and he was not informed, of any offence he had committed or was suspected of having committed, against any law of Uganda or against the Treaty. To us this also is basic. Whatever else Counsel claimed to be due process was but a mockery of the same if it could enable the Immigration to bundle up a citizen of a Partner State, and dispatch him out of the country unheard. 78. In Court we expected Counsel to show us what exactly it was that the Applicant was suspected of and/or charged with and needed due process for in the first place. To our dismay, nothing was shown, despite our prodding. 79. The Applicant is a citizen of a Partner State and, as shown elsewhere above, is a special creature of and protected under the Treaty. The Republic of Uganda is voluntarily and irrevocably bound by the Treaty. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 36