Applicant as a public spirited litigant would irreparably agonize over her apparent inability to prevent a possible breach of the Constitution and other laws of Uganda. Counsel concluded that should there be any doubt on the part of the Court, the Court should find that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of halting the novel ITMS. Submissions by Counsel for the Respondent [12] In reply, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the status quo has been irretrievably changed. Counsel stated that the Government has already executed a binding agreement with M/s Joint Stock Company Global Security and carried out a feasibility study for implementation purposes. Counsel stated that the financial model, registration with NITA-U and URSB, a public notice and a road map for rolling out the project are pre-mature procedural matters that will be addressed in due course of the project. Counsel argued that since this is an application for enforcement of human rights, such matters are best suited to be addressed in an application for judicial review. [13] On the ground for existence of a prima facie case, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the main cause from which the instant application emanates is premature and incompetent and cannot raise any serious issues for determination by the Court. Counsel also argued that the Applicant’s submissions have veered off into the merits of the application. Counsel argued that the implementation of the ITMS is authorized and is based on a legitimate purpose. Counsel argued that any limitation it may occasion on the right to privacy is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society as provided for under Article 43 of the Constitution. Counsel concluded that the main Cause is misconceived and does not raise a prima facie case with a probability of success. 6