scrutiny. More fundamentally, narrowed down the issues the in Amended contention Reference and evidence that the Applicant has not addressed we has have seen itself specifically to those issues which have more to do with specific actions of the Government oppossed of Uganda to the in implementing enactment of the the impugned law per se which law was as the direction the Applicant’s initial statements took. 27.In addition to the above findings, it has not been denied by the Attorney service General provision that the Applicant is an expert and human questions of in HIV rights attendant the said services and that is why he proposed that the could the indeed join the subject, therefore which Reference is necessary partly for as an expert. an the issue Court to Applicant Its knowledge in the to related get of Reference, a is wholesome understanding of the same. 28. It is also our considered view that an the terms set out in Mumo Court distill to determination from Matemu such of the matter a before is not seized of the Applicant’s and shall be proceedings to its role as made and aware, brief amicus brief is limited in (supra) and what it. While is it is upto useful therefore brief, by this Ruling, of its limited the in the the Court it has been participation in the to avoid any sign of partiality or lack of fidelity amicus curiae. The converse is that if it exhibits partiality in the brief, the same risks being ignored by this Court. So far as we are concerned, it has taken sides however, we have specifically in regard to any seen no sign that issue directly in APPLICATIONS No.3 OF 2015 Page 12