No.001322 vs. the Attorney General of India on 10th December, 2012 that:“…….. the duty of the Attorney General is to render advice to the Government of India on legal matters. Viewed thus, he cannot be said to be an authority as he does not perform any functions which alter the relations or rights of others. The advice rendered by him may be accepted by the Government of India or it may not be accepted. His advice per se does not have a binding effect” [emphasis added] 87. We fully associate ourselves with the above authority as well as the findings in the case of Jim Muhwezi & 3 ORS vs. Attorney General and Anor, Constitutional Petition No.10 of 2008. [supra] 88. Consequently and in view of all the foregoing, we hold and find Issue No.3 in the negative. ISSUE NO.4: Whether there was any Loss of USD17,826,038.94 by the Government of Uganda and Quality Chemical Limited: 89. The paramount question herein is whether this is an issue to be determined by this Court. THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 90. To begin with, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is unfortunately no provision under the Treaty that clothes the Court with jurisdiction to ascertain whether there was such a loss or not. Consequently, he submitted that the Court should dismiss Issue No.4 for lack of jurisdiction. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 32