commenced illegal activities which include licensing and issuing Copyright Clearance Licenses to Audio-Visual Vendors who are communicating to the public, reproducing, publishing, offering for sale, rental or hire films without the authorization of the copyright owners, pirated and without a security devise. 9. That the 2nd Respondent has never carried out an audit with an approved auditor by the 1st Respondent since it obtained a license to carry on the roles of a Collecting Society since 2011. 10. That the 1st Respondent has the mandate to supervise the activities of the 2nd Respondent with emphasis on principals of Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance (TAG). The failure by the Executive Committee of a Collecting Society to cause the auditing of accounts in accordance with the law, presupposes that the executive committee has relinquished office and the 1st Respondent must convene a meeting to elect a new Executive committee. 11. That the 2nd Respondent’s executive committee is mandated to cause estimates of the income and expenditure to be prepared for the coming twelve months at least three months before the end of its financial year and a copy of the estimates shall be sent to the 1st Respondent for an opinion before they are submitted to the general meeting. The 2nd Respondent has failed to deliver on this put continues to operate as a Collecting Society being favoured by the 1st Respondent. 12. That the applicants are dismayed by the fact that the 2nd Respondent as a Collecting Society meant to carry on the role of collecting and distribution of royalties does not have approved licensing tariffs by the 1st Respondent which should be the “Guiding Bible” for any society with such a responsibility. This situation has been brought to the knowledge of the 1st Respondent through the various complaints lodged against the 2 nd Respondent, however there has never been any effort to clear or rectify this situation by the 1 st Respondent. 13. That it’s a requirement of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 and the Regulations thereunder that a security device is affixed by the 2nd Respondent to each and every audio visual recording which is to be distributed or otherwise exposed to the public for sale, hire or rental, within Uganda upon verification that the audio visual recording has been produced or published in Uganda or imported in Uganda without infringing any Copyright granted by the Act. The 2nd Respondent has failed to do the mandated obligations but rather issued Copyright Clearance Licenses to Vendors who are selling pirated movies and without a security device affixed onto them. 4