and supply the basis of its jurisdiction through interpretation of the Treaty and not simply by relying on the Katabazi case.(supra) ii) that Article 6 (d) of the Treaty, which the Applicant alleges was infringed by the Respondent, consists of aspirations and broad policy provisions for the Community which are futuristic and progressive in application and that it raises political questions which cannot be answered by this Court. That the provision is not capable of being breached and, therefore, it is not justiciable. In support of her stance, Counsel cited the authority of a Ugandan case, Centre for Health Human Rights and Development & 3 others versus The Attorney General of Uganda, [Constitutional Petition No 16 of 2011], where the Constitutional Court of Uganda declined to entertain a Petition premised on allegations that the Government was not investing sufficiently in maternal health services with dire consequences for women and children, because it was political in character and concerned policy issues. 20. Mr Mbugua Mureithi argued the case for the Applicant. In answer to the issue of want of jurisdiction, he asserted that the Reference was properly before the Court in accordance with Article 30 (1) of the Treaty which provides that: “Subject to the provisions of Article 27 of this Treaty, any person who is resident in a Partner State may refer for determination by the Court, the legality of any Act, regulation, directive, decision or action of a Partner State or an institution of the Community on the grounds that such Act, regulation, directive, decision or action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of this Treaty”. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 10