[16] On the case before me, there is evidence that the planned Intelligent Transport Monitoring System (ITMS) has not been implemented and, as such, there would be a status quo that would require preservation. A question, however, arises as to whether there is actual need for preservation of such a status quo in the circumstances of the present case. This question, in my view, is intertwined with the questions as to whether a prima facie case exists as to warrant issuance of an order of a temporary injunction; and secondly, whether irreparable injury will arise if the order is not issued. I will therefore deal with these three aspects concurrently in the particular circumstances of this case. [17] The main cause before the Court is based on fears of alleged infringement to fundamental human rights and freedoms of privacy, human dignity, equal treatment under the law, among others. The justification by the Respondent for introducing the ITMS is for purpose of safeguarding national security and curbing crime which is a central responsibility of the Government. It is therefore clear to me that the dispute in the main suit is to be based on the balancing of rights and obligations. The Court will have to examine the evidence to establish whether any alleged limitations to the enjoyment of the named rights and freedoms occasioned by the planned ITMS are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That being the case, I do not think that this is a case in which at the end, the parties expect the Court to give a “Yes” or “No” answer. Let me explain. I do not expect that after hearing evidence, the Court is likely to totally prohibit the Government from undertaking any transport monitoring system. What the Court is likely to do is to give directions that ensure that whatever monitoring system is put in place does not unreasonably interfere with the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the persons concerned. Equally, I do not expect the Court to give a go ahead to the implementation of the ITMS in the form proposed if evidence is adduced showing that the same occasions or is likely to occasion an unjust interference to the rights and dignity of persons in Uganda. 8