Uganda: Mukasa and Another v Attorney-General (2008) AHRLR 248 (UgHC 2008) 1.              The right to privacy of the person, home and property guaranteed by article 27 of the Constitution (the forceful ingress by the LC1 Chairman of Kireka zone into the first applicant’s house). 2.              The right to personal liberty guaranteed under article 23(1) (arrest of the second applicant). 3.              The right to protection from any form of torture, cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment guaranteed by article 24 (LC1 Chairman and the OC police).   Naturally, the respondent denied the allegations by the applicants. It relied on the affidavits by Isone Rose dated 24 May 2007 and John Lubega of 10 September 2007.   [20.] Ms Isone deponed that she was the officer in charge of Kireka police post at the material time, and she is therefore well versed with the circumstances and facts regarding the applicants’ complaint. Neither herself nor any officer in Kireka police post was aware or involved in the alleged illegal search of the home of the first applicant, the alleged seizure of property, arrest and alleged harassment of the second applicant at all.   [21.] According to her version, on that day, the Chairman came with the second applicant to Kireka police and the two were exchanging ‘hot’ words. Whereupon she took over the role of mediator to enable both parties to cool down so that she could get to the root of the fracas. She 7 / 19