We examined the authority which Counsel told us she was fortified with. We found that the Petitioners’ contention in that authority, Centre for Health Human Rights and Development and 3 others Versus the Attorney General, Petition No 16 of 2011, was that the State failed to provide basic indispensable health items in Government facilities for expectant mothers and that as a result of this failure, together with the imprudent and unethical behaviour of health workers, the maternal mortality rate in Uganda was high. It is basically this contention that the Court considered and held, inter alia, that the Executive has the political and legal responsibility to determine, formulate and implement Government policy and that the Court has no power to determine or enforce its jurisdiction on matters that require analysis of the health sector government policies, make a review of some and later on, their implementation and that, if it did that, it would be substituting its discretion for that of the executive granted to it by law. We failed to find the connection between the facts of the authority cited and the present Reference, where the contention is whether a Partner State violated specific provisions of the Treaty. It is clear to us that the provisions of Article 6 (d) of the Treaty are solemn and serious governance obligations of immediate, constant and consistent conduct by the Partner States. In our humble view, we know of no other provisions that embody the sanctity of the integration process the way the above do. 37. In view of the foregoing, we find and hold that the Reference is properly before the Court. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 19