3. Whether there is a conflict of interest pertaining to Norman Mbabazi, the former legal officer of the 2nd Respondent. It should be noted that this court has decided to resolve this matter in a manner that preserves harmony in the Film industry and the issues that had been raised have been ignored in the determination of this case. This court has been guided by Article 126(2) (d) of the Constitution and the interrogation made through the questions posed by court and the respective answers that had been availed or given. This court has established that as suggested by the 1st respondent, there is need to address the concerns affecting the industry rather than engaging in legal gymnastics that will not help the different factions. It can indeed be established from the affidavits that the 2nd respondent has not been able to comply with the provisions of the law due to several challenges that have been highlighted by 2nd respondent deponents. The blame game of the previous office holders will not equally solve the problem but rather finding concrete solutions to the existing challenges that this court has identified. It would appear that the 2nd respondent upon registration has decided to lock out some members or persons who qualify to be part of the organization by virtue of being copyright owners. The issue of who is a member of the 2nd respondent has been very prominent to the extent that the applicants have been denied membership and yet they claim to have originally been members of the same organization. The 1st respondent should render guidance to the 2nd respondent on how to make or amend the Constitution that would govern and include all the members. The membership should open to any person who is stakeholder of the Film and Movie Industry. Once a person is admitted as a member of the organization, he/she should always remain a member but is supposed to pay annual subscription fees to activate his or her membership or be able to take part in the affairs of the organization. The election of office bearer should be rotational every after 2-3 years and any member is eligible to hold any position of the organization. The organization should have at least one Annual general meeting called at notice of the members. In Uganda the Collecting Society License is Issued by URSB which takes in the role as the Copyright office and as such has the power to deregister and register any society if found with the right qualifications as laid down from S. 57 to 73 of the Copyright and Neighbouring rights Act. Among the conditions to deregister are failure to submit audited books of accounts, illegality within the running of the Society. All these have been raised with evidence in the pleadings. The 2nd respondent have conceded to some of the complaints by admitting that these are the challenges of the Federations and collecting society. In the first place it was wrong to merge a federating body with a collecting Society because these two institutions do totally different works and as such cannot be merged whatsoever. The single 7