Uganda: Mukasa and Another v Attorney-General (2008) AHRLR 248 (UgHC 2008) knows that the house of the second applicant was not searched at any material time as she was informed by the LC1 Chairman which information she believes to be true. Her information is to the effect that the second applicant and her colleague were actually found and picked from a bar near their home. The Chairman further told her that he had received several complaints from residents in the area about the unbecoming behaviour of the applicants and that the residents had threatened to lynch them, so he decided to refer them to police for further action. She told the Chairman to provide sufficient evidence from witnesses with regard to the alleged homosexuality before police could take action.   [22.] She also told the Chairman to leave the items he had removed from the second applicant at the bar with her for safe custody. She denied that the second applicant was humiliated, sexually harassed nor indecently assaulted by herself, any other police officer or LDU at Kireka police post as alleged. She also denied that any LDU officer was involved in the case since she would have been the one to authorize their involvement in any operation in her area of jurisdiction. She stated that she did not see any reason to detain the second applicant based on the facts presented by the Chairman and she did not open up a file or record any statements in respect of the matter. The next day, when the two applicants appeared before her in the presence of the Chairman, she returned all the property that the Chairman had deposited with her to the rightful owner, and it is not true that any property was detained by the her or any officer thereafter at Kireka police post as alleged by the first applicant. She further stated that she advised the Chairman to have the matter settled amicably in his area since she did not see any reason for the police to take over and investigate such a matter without evidence from witnesses. The allegations against herself, the police at Kireka police post and LDU’s are therefore untrue, unfounded, malicious and without basis.   [23.] Mr Lubega, the LC1 Chairman, also vehemently denied on his part that the second applicant was arrested from her house at Kireka as alleged. According to his version of the story, the truth of the matter is that the second applicant was arrested from a drinking bar where she was about to be lynched together with the first applicant by residents. He had received several complaints from the residents of his area of jurisdiction about the unbecoming behaviour of the applicants who were kissing in a public place. When he reached the said bar owned by one Mayanja, he did witness for himself, the applicants kissing in public while the residents and children were looking at them. He proceeded to apprehend them to rescue them from the enraged and/or angry residents who wanted to lynch them. In the process he found them with 8 / 19