29. At this stage, Mr. Godfrey Magezi is indeed, a natural person, a resident of Uganda, and the Republic of Uganda is a Partner State in the meaning of Article 1 of the Treaty and the Applicant is challenging the legality of the actions of the Attorney General and IGG of Uganda through their aforesaid letters. 30. With respect to the Respondent, it is our view that the matters raised in the Reference do meet the requirements laid down in the above Articles and as to whether the Reference is well or ill-founded is immaterial at this point. 31. Previously, this Court has on constant objections as to lack of jurisdiction held and invariably so in James Katabazi & 21 Others vs. the Secretary General of the EAC and The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, EACJ Reference No.1 of 2007 and in Samuel Mukira Mohochi, Reference No.5 of 2011 that it has jurisdiction over interpretation of the Treaty. 32. In Mukira Mohochi, the Court found that:“….. This Court does have jurisdiction to interpret and apply any and all provisions of the Treaty save for those excepted by the provisions to Article 27.” 33. Further, in the same judgment, the Court added that:”………..It is that alleged infringement which through interpretation of the Treaty under Article 27(1) constitutes the cause of action in the instant Reference, and consequently, establishes the legal foundation of the jurisdiction of this Court in this Reference.” Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 14