82. Such a provision especially provided for under the Constitution gives more powers and strength to the IGG to the extent that he or she can act independently. In the same vein, we note that he IGG wrote to the Attorney General pointing out that the review and amendment of the original MoU and the execution of the Amended MoU and Guarantee on 16th April, 2012 are adequate implementation of all recommendations contained in the report. In so doing, the IGG applied special powers conferred by the Constitution and that is consistent with the rule of law. 83. The Applicant has never challenged the Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002 for being inconsistent with Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1) (c) of the Treaty. Turning back to Article 8(1) (c) of the Treaty therefore, we have not found any submission from the Applicant in respect of violation of the Treaty and by any stretch of imagination, we do not see how the aforesaid IGG’s letter jeopardised the achievement of the objectives of the implementation of the Treaty. 84. Another salient issue that was raised by the Applicant is that the IGG’s change of mind was caused by the rejection of the report by the Attorney General. 85. On that issue, we only need to say that the Attorney General did not perform any function which altered the IGG’s powers as set out in Article 230 of the Uganda Constitution. Moreover, the legal advice of the Attorney General is merely advisory rather than binding on the IGG. 86. On the mandate of the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of India held in the case of Mr. Shri Mani Ram Sharma and Others Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 31