the case for the Attorney General and to allow the Motion would not be in the interests of Justice. 14. Fourth, down and that since the Anti-Homosexuality Act has been by the Constitutional Court of Uganda, the Motion have been overtaken struck both the Reference by events and no purpose would be served in allowing the said Motion. 15. Fifth, Ms. Patricia Mutesi, Principal State Attorney, added that if the Applicant the Reference, is an expert in the matters then it should to be determined in seek to be called as such expert or as an intervener and not as amicus curiae because of its obvious bias. E. COURT’S 16. From DETERMINATION the outset, it cannot be denied that the Applicant has an interest in the stated 13(1) subject by Oburu and (2) challenged Odoi of the as_ counselling, matter Jimmy allegedly procuring access legitimate to health mandate of sufficient interest Avocats 2013). Sans In the the Reference promotion debate, These Applicant, Frontieres in to have related Sections 2014 7 and have aiding, been abeting, homosexuality, service complaints, our create should provision if read considered filed the vs. Mbugua circumstances, of as correctly hampers professional counsel and HIV services." for it Act '‘criminalising, and and in his Affidavit, Anti-Homosexuality offences that are overly broad, impedes of the instant Mureithi, it be and with the view, create Motion (see EACJ No.2 granted leave of to be enjoined as an amicus curiae? APPLICATIONS No.3 OF 2015 Page 6