Considering that the Constitutive Act of the African Union recognizes that freedom, equality, justice, peace and dignity are essential objectives for the achievement of the legitimate aspiration of the African peoples; Further Considering that Article 3 of the said Constitutive Act enjoins Member States to coordinate and intensify their cooperation, unity, cohesion and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa; Cognizant of the fact that the Constitutive Act of the African Union, inter alia, calls for the need to promote and protect human and peoples' rights, consolidate democratic institutions and foster a culture of democracy and ensure good governance and the rule of law; Aware of the need to respect human dignity and to foster the promotion of economic, social, and political rights in conformity with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights and other relevant human rights instruments; Bearing in mind the 1990 Declaration on the Fundamental Changes Taking Place in the World and their Implications for Africa; the 1994 Cairo Agenda for Action Relaunching Africa's Socio-economic Transformation; and the Plan of Action Against Impunity adopted by the Nineteenth Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights in 1996 as subsequently endorsed by the Sixty fourth Ordinary Session of the Council of Ministers held in Yaounde, Cameroon in 1996 which, among others, underlined the need to observe principles of good governance, the primacy of law, human rights, democratization and popular participation by the African peoples in the processes of governance.

This is an appeal against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“the IAT”) given on 20 February 2003 when it allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the determination of the Adjudicator promulgated on 10 July 2002. The Adjudicator had allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State, made on 26 April 2001, by which he refused the appellant leave to enter the United Kingdom. Permission to appeal to this court was granted by Pill LJ and Maurice Kay J on 26 June 2003, following earlier refusal by Kennedy LJ on 2 June 2003 on consideration of the papers only. I should add that shortly before the substantive hearing in this court the Terrence Higgins Trust (“the THT”) applied to intervene in the appeal. I directed that while the court would take account of the skeleton argument submitted by the THT, we would decide at the substantive hearing of the appeal whether or to what extent we wished to hear oral submissions on its behalf. In the event we received without objection certain further documentation from the THT but declined to hear oral argument from its counsel Ms. Webber. We are grateful for the documentary materials which the THT has provided.