51. The Applicant submitted that the Attorney General has no powers to review the IGG’s report as long as the mandate of the IGG derives from the Constitution. Had he such a power, the Attorney General should have applied it to other investigations carried out by the Inspectorate of Government instead of being selective and unequal by quashing one report only without any legal basis or criteria, argued the Applicant. He contended that once he has made a disclosure followed by investigations and findings of impropriety under the Whistle-blowers Protection, the only action that should have been taken was the one appropriate in accordance with Section 8 of the above Act to the extent that the Applicant expected to be rewarded. 52. The Applicant therefore asserted that the actions of both the IGG and Attorney General constituted an infringement and a breach of the principles of good governance, accountability and rule of law as provided for under Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty. 53. In support of his submissions, the Applicant relied on the authorities of James Katabazi & 21Others vs. Secretary General of the East African Community and the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda EACJ Reference No.1 of 2007, Smit Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Shri Raj Narain & Anathor Air 1975 SC 2299 Supp SCC or 19762 SCR 347 and HEABC vs. Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association 2004 BCSC 603 as well as on the definition of good governance, accountability and rule of law in those decisions. 54. In conclusion, the Applicant invited this Court to find Issue No.3 in the affirmative. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 21