the organisation’s agenda, making good governance imply many different things in many different contexts.” We fully associate ourselves with the above description and we are of the firm belief that herein lies the explanation why the framers of the Treaty went beyond stating the principle and instead negotiated and agreed upon a specific minimum set of requirements that constituted the good governance package that, in their wisdom, suited the EAC integration agenda. That package, for purposes of the EAC integration, as set out in Article 6 (d), includes; a) adherence to the principles of democracy, b) the rule of law, accountability, c) transparency, d) social justice, e) equal opportunities, f) gender equality, as well as g) the recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Apart from asserting that the provisions are aspirations and broad policy provisions for the Community, political in character and with a futuristic and progressive application, Counsel did not substantiate. They did not explain how and why these fundamental principles are mere aspirations. They failed to show us why we should depart from the position of this Court succinctly stated in the IMLU Case(supra) that these provisions constitute responsibilities of Partner States to citizens which, through those States’ voluntary entry into the EAC, have crystallised into actionable obligations, breach of which gives rise to infringement of the Treaty. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 18