58. The Respondent then averred that the IGG applied the above provisions while discharging her duties and in so doing, did not in any way operate outside the principles of good governance, democracy and rule of law. He added that the various authorities and legal sources quoted by the Applicant have been cited out of context but he agreed with the definition of rule of law as laid down in James Katabazi [supra]. 59. Regarding the Attorney General’s legal opinion, the Respondent further submitted that his advice did not in any way hinder the IGG’s powers to the extent that he exercised his constitutional mandate under Article 119(3) and (4) of the Uganda Constitution. The Respondent asserted that upon further scrutiny of the IGG report, he wrote down his legal opinion and forwarded it to the IGG who, after consideration, reviewed her recommendations. 60. The Respondent further pointed out that he did not quash, set aside or nullify the IGG’s recommendations but rather that he scrutinized the report and came up with appropriate advice in the light of his constitutional mandate. In support of his submissions, the Respondent cited a number of authorities including the Case of Jim Muhwezi & 3 ORS vs. Attorney General & ANOR, Constitutional Petition No.10 of 2008 where the Applicant had alleged that it was unconstitutional for the President of the Republic of Uganda to direct the IGG to investigate any matter. The Constitutional Court indeed found that the IGG has a plain exercise of discretion on whether or not to investigate any matter and stated so in clear terms as follows:“….the President did all these in the impugned letter to the IGG. He like anyone else has the right to make a complaint to Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 23