Uganda: Mukasa and Another v Attorney-General (2008) AHRLR 248 (UgHC 2008) several CDs, diskettes and documents titled ‘Small Minority Uganda’.   [24.] The first applicant escaped, so he managed to take only the second applicant to Kireka police post where he handed her to the OC, one Isone Rose, together with the CDs, diskettes and documents in question. The following day, the applicants appeared at Kireka police post demanding for them, and the OC handed over the CDs, diskettes and other documents to the applicants in his presence. It is not true that he entered the first applicant’s house, humiliated, sexually harassed and indecently assaulted the second applicant as alleged. It is also not true that he made her to sit in his office as she alleged. He took her directly to Kireka police post and not to his office as alleged.   [25.] By way of a rejoinder dated 11 June 2007, the second applicant described the contents of Mr Lubega’s affidavit as untrue and put the respondent to strict proof thereof. She specifically averred that there was no exchange of hot words with the LC1 Chairman at all but that she was instead subdued after having been dragged by the waist to the police station under continual harassment by the LC1 Chairman who referred to her as ‘this creature’ and the police did not at anytime take over the role of mediator. The admission by the LC1 Chairman that the properties were ‘police’ with the respondent by the LC Chairman and retained overnight confirms the applicant’s charge of illegal retention of property, as no records were kept by the police.   [26.] The first applicant also filed a rejoinder on 21 June 2007 which I find argumentative and therefore violates the law on affidavits. An affidavit is evidence, not arguments or submissions. After expunging the argumentative parts, I can only say that she basically re-stated her case in the rejoinder and attacked the respondent’s evidence as untrue, and also put the respondent to stuck proof. 9 / 19