Court’s order of preventive detention, then the matter was settled. The fundamental question is; how can such an action validate what was previously and patently arbitrary, unlawful and in breach of the principles set out in Article 6(d) of the Treaty? How can it be said that a Partner State is adhering to the principles of good governance and the rule of law when a citizen is arrested and held incommucado without any competent Court being seized of his matter? It matters not, as claimed by the 2nd Respondent, that the subject was held in a known facility and it matters not that his family, lawyers and friends may have had access to him. Where is his liberty when his incarceration has not been ordered by any Court of Law that is competent to order such incarceration? 40. These questions are not addressing any human rights issue per se but are addressing adherence to issues of good governance and the rule of Law, generally. In Katabazi (supra) the Court partly adopted the decision in Bennet vs. Horsefery Road Magistrate���s Court and another where Lord Griffith stated as follows: “If the Court is to have power to interfere with the prosecution in the present circumstances it must be because the judiciary accepts a responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law that embraces a REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 27