Uganda: Mukasa and Another v Attorney-General (2008) AHRLR 248 (UgHC 2008)   [32.] That would not be possible if the second applicant was being helped for her own safety. The true story is the one told by the applicants, that the second applicant was arrested by the LC1 Chairman while she slept in her room in Kireka, who forcibly took her to his office where she was denied toilet facilities and alter escorted by a male person to the toilet, and eventually on taken to Kireka police post where she was undressed in the gaze of men and was mistreated by the LC1 Chairman and police in breach of her constitutional guarantees as alleged. The applicant’s properties namely CDs and document were taken. There were no accompanying witnesses. The six people he talked about were not there. There was no mob.   [33.] Ms Nabakooza, the learned Senior State Attorney who represented the Attorney- General, opposed the application relying on the affidavits in reply. Starting with the LC1 Chairman,. Ms Nabakooza submitted that the Chairman had been before the court. His evidence had remained firm and consistent even after cross-examination. It should be accepted as the truth of what transpired on that particular day.   [34.] The evidence of the OC police had also rebutted the applicant’s case. The police who are her clients in this matter were not involved at all in alleged search of the first applicant’s premises. The OC says that upon arrival at the station, she was a mediator. Her story is as was told by the LC Chairman. It is true that the applicant was about to be lynched. These statements are corroborated by the affidavit of the Chairman himself who also testified in Court. The OC said she needed more evidence before she could consider taking up the matter for further investigation and released second applicant and also returned all their documents and CDs. According to Ms Nabakooza, the police in their wisdom felt that the matter could be amicably settled in the area. The second applicant was not humiliated or sexually harassed as alleged or indecently assaulted by the police or LDU. The allegation against the police are therefore untrue, unfounded, malicious and without basis.   12 / 19