Bulawayo Legal Practitioner’s Association
Letter addressed to: The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
RE: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT: MATABELAND
At the Annual General Meeting of the Bulawayo Legal Practitioner’s Association, held on Friday the 29th November 1985, concern was expressed regarding widespread violations of human rights in Matabeleland. It was unanimously agreed that a confidential report should be compiled so that these matters could be brought to the attention of the President, Prime Minster and yourself.
The attached report cites 30 cases during 1985 where individual’s rights have been abused. The report came from every firm of legal practitioners in Bulawayo bar one and the firm dealing with each case is noted.
You will note that in most cases cited the client has been released or taken to court and accordingly much of this deals with water already under the bridge. The main purpose of this report is to ensure that what has happened in Matabeleland in 1985 will not happen in 1986 or again.
There are eight major areas of concern arising from the report:
1. POLICE/C I O ASSAULTS
Section 15(1) of the Constitution states that “No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment”. Cases 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 20, 23, 24, 30 detail widespread beatings and torture. The prime culprits would appear to be Police Internal Security and Intelligence branch (Pisi).
2. ILLEGAL DETENTIONS: SECTION 53(1) ORDERS
Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers (Maintenance of Law and Order) Regulations 1983 states that a person may be detained in terms of this section for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days.
Cases 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 26, are all examples where various units have ignored the provisions of Section 53(1). In all these cases detainees have been held for periods in excess of the stipulated 30 days (in case 3 some 181 days in excess).
3. ILLEGAL DETENTIONS: NO DETENTION ORDER
Sections 13(3) and (4) of the Constitution states that a person who is detained shall be advised of the reasons for his arrest and shall be brought before a court without undue delay.
Cases 1, 2, 14, 23, 29 are examples where people have been detained, no reasons for their detention have been given, no detention order ever served on them and none of them have been brought before a court yet.
4. ACCESS DENIED TO LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
Section 13(3) of the Constitution states that a person shall be allowed, as soon as reasonably practicable, to instruct a legal representative of his own choice. Section 17(2) of the Emergency Powers (Maintenance of Law and order) Regulations 1983 goes a step further and says not later than seven days after the person is detained he shall be allowed to instruct a legal practitioner of his own choice.
In cases 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, access was denied to the legal practitioners concerned. In most cases the legal practitioners resorted to High Court petitions and in case 23 costs against the Minister of Home Affairs was awarded on the legal practitioner and client scale.
5. DISAPPEARANCE OF PEOPLE
It is extremely disturbing to note that in a couple of cases (namely 1, 2 and 28) the people initially arrested by Police have disappeared completely. These cases require urgent investigation to ascertain where the people arrested are now.
6. GENERAL DISREGARD BY POLICE FOR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
It must be stated that we have only given examples of cases where Police or C I O have clearly acted unlawfully and not in accordance with the strict letter of the law. However, there are numerous other cases not reported where the true spirit of the law has not been observed by the Police and, to a lesser extent, by the C I O. Even in some of the cases quoted (see 14, 18, 27, 29 and 30) Police have detained people for no apparent reason (14), for doing his investigations into mismanagement of Railway property too well (27), for indications and (29), for not wearing a helmet (30). There are numerous other cases where people have been detained for sometimes four days to two weeks on extremely flimsy, if not non existent, grounds. Several clients have reported that they were arrested in the middle of the night (for example M.C. – Case 13 – was arrested at 4.20 a.m. and that the arresting details did not identify, or refused to, identify themselves). Matabeleland is infested by dissidents – how are people to know that people who come in plain clothes, in the middle of the night, and who refuse to identify themselves are not dissidents?
7. GENERAL CONDITIONS AT STOPS CAMP
Nearly all clients who have been detained at Stops Camp report the same conditions namely:
a. that at any one time there are up to 300 people detained in security cells;
b. that there are only 2 latrines, 2 urinals and 2 showers for 300 people;
c. that only one side of the enclosure is bricked in, the other 3 sides are just wire mesh;
d. that in mid winter each prisoner has to sleep on the floor with one blanket; and
e. that there are some unrepresented people who have been there for months.
Whilst we understand that the Minister of Home Affairs did visit Security Cells at Stops Camp on the 3rd January 1986 to see conditions for himself, we believe that the following must be done in this regard:
i) a Magistrate must visit security cells at Stops Camp once a month to check whether people are being held lawfully;
ii) a Government doctor must visit once a month to check on the health of the detainees; and
iii) steps must be taken to bring detainees before court, and put on remand quicker or to serve Section 17(1) Detention Orders so that they can be removed to regular detention centers such as Chikurubi.
8. THE PLIGHT OF UNREPRESENTED PEOPLE
All cases referred to in this report concern people who are wealthy enough to instruct a legal practitioner. However, many people do not have the means to instruct legal practitioners and there are many reports (unsubstantiated) of people who have been in Stops Camp for months because they are unrepresented. Case 14 is in point; this young man was detained but nobody knew why or for whom he was being detained. He sat in detention for 20 days and it was only after his legal practitioner had established that nobody in Police or C I O had detained him then he was released. What would have happened if he had not been represented and there had not been a legal practitioner investigating matters?
The only possible short term solution to this problem is if a Magistrate visits Stops Camp, and other security cells, once a month to check on who is being held illegally.
We trust that this report will be given your urgent attention and that the suggestions made will be given favourable consideration.
BULAWAYO ASSOCIATION OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
BULAWAYO ASSOCIATION OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS REPORT
CASE 1 12.04
Z.K. was assaulted by a member of the Zimbabwe National Army. The assault was reported and the ZNA member arrested. In December 1984 Z.K. was detained at Stops Camp. On the 11.3.85 he was released from Stops Camp into the custody of the ZNA member. He has not been seen since.
(S & S)
CASE 2 6.2.85
O.N. was arrested in Tjolotjo on the 6.2.85 and thereafter disappeared. On the 10.9.85 O.N.’s family discovered that he was being held by C I O at Stops Camp. O.N. was then handed over to C I D and his wife was advised in November 1985 that he had been released. O.N. has not been seen again and his lawyers are still trying to locate him.
CASE 3 25.3.85
S.N. was arrested in ZRP Mpoengs on the 25.6.85. On the 13.8.85 S.N.’s wife instructed her lawyer to find S.N. On the 16.12.85 the Officer-in-Charge Plumtree advised that S.N. was being held at Plumtree for C I O. On the 9.1.86 C I O advised that S.N. was being handed over to the C I D for prosecution. At the time of writing this report access still had not been granted and S.N. had not been taken to court. There is no indication whether a Ministerial Order in terms of Section 17 of the Emergency Powers Regulations has been issued yet. Client has at the 21.1.86 been in detention for 211 days.
CASE 4 25.7.85
B.T. was seriously assaulted by unknown persons (not Police or C I O) on the 25.7.85 at Tjolotjo and was taken to Tjolotjo Hospital. The nurse in charge suspected that B.T. had serious concussion and telephoned for an ambulance to ferry B.T. to Mpilo Hospital in Bulawayo. B.T. was being taken to Mpilo when the ambulance was stopped by members of the C I O who ordered that B.T. be taken to Tjolotjo Police Station. This was done and B.T. was left there. On the 31.7.85 B.T.’s legal practitioner telephoned the Officer-in-Charge of C I O Tjolotjo, one DUBE, and requested that B.T. be taken by C I O to Mpilo Hospital. This was refused on the grounds that C I O were arranging for him to be attended to in Tjolotjo and that B.T. would be released when their investigations were completed. On the 7.8.85 B.T.’s legal practitioner obtained, by way an ex parte petition, an order through the High Court compelling the C I O to take B.T. to Mpilo Hospital for medical examination and treatment.
CASE 5 5.8.85
C.B. was arrested on 5.8.85 by the C I O. On the 5.8.85 C.B. was assaulted by unknown members of the C I O. He was stripped and then his head was put into a canvas bag filled with water. The bag was tied around his neck and then lifted up suffocating C.B. This was done 5 times. On the 9.8.85 C.B. was served with a Detention Order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations. On the 13.9.85 C.B. was served with another Detention Order (in terms of Section 53(1)) whilst still in detention. Section 53(1) is clear: a person can be detained “for a period not exceeding thirty days”. C.B. was released on the 11.10.85 after 68 days in detention.
CASE 6 8.8.85
T.M. was arrested on the 8.8.85 by members of C I D Law and Order Department. He reported to his legal practitioner that he had been systematically beaten in an attempt to elicit a confession and was held in custody until such time as his wounds had healed. When taken to court he complained to the Presiding Magistrate but as his wounds had already healed no medical report was ordered.
CASE 7 12.8.85
N. was arrested by members of Pisi, Gweru, on the 12.8.85. N.’s legal practitioner experienced difficulty in gaining access. N. was finally released from MASVINGO without being charged on the 17.10.85 (59 days in detention) and was warned not to consult either a doctor or lawyer. N. did consult his lawyer and complained of being beaten on his back and tortured generally. A photograph of N.’s back is available and he was examined by a doctor on the 184.108.40.206. Six officers, all members of Pisi, took part in the torture including the following:
Section Officer DWENE, Sgt. JIMMY and GEORGE (all of MASVINGO).
CASE 8 15.8.85
N.S. was arrested by Pisi Bulawayo and held at Stops Camp. Whilst in detention N.S. was beaten badly. He was hung upside down with his feet tied to a rafter and his head was placed in a bucket of water thus suffocating him. A wet blanket was put over his head on another occasion suffocating him. N.S. was released from detention on the 4.10.85 (51 days in detention). Several Officers, all members of Pisi, took part in the torture including Sgt. MUNYORO and Const. DAVID SIBANDA.
CASE 9 16.8.85
J.M. and others were arrested by Gwanda Police on approximately the 16.8.85. Between the 20.8.85 and the 21.9.85 several attempts were made at Gwanda ZRP by their legal practitioner to confirm whether they were in custody – all without success. During the last week of September arrangements were made with the Assistant Commissioner commanding Matabeleland South for the legal practitioner to visit the detainees in Gwanda on the 4.10.85. On 4.10.85 when the legal practitioner arrived in Gwanda (having driven from Bulawayo) the same Assistant Commissioner denied him access. An application for access was then made through the High Court in Bulawayo and the Police were ordered to grant access.
(S & S)
CASE 10 20.8.85
C.M. was arrested by Police and detained at Filabusi on the 20.8.85. C.M.’s legal practitioner obtained instructions to defend him on the 21.11.85 and telephoned the Assistant Commissioner commanding the Matabeleland South requesting access. Access was denied and was only granted after the legal practitioner telephoned the Attorney General’s offices to complain (which office in turn contacted Police General Headquarters).
(S & S)
CASE 11 20.8.85
N.N. was arrested by members of the ZRP on the 20.8.85 and served with a Detention Order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations. N.N. was moved around to a number of different Police Stations and his legal practitioner had a wasted trip as far as Gwanda to attend upon the Senior Assistant Commissioner in a fruitless attempt to again access. Access was only granted after N.N.’s legal practitioner threatened to institute action through the High Court. In fact the application was drafted and prepared but was never filed as the Senior Assistant Commissioner contacted N.N.’s legal practitioner to give permission following the service upon him of a similar order by another legal practitioner.
CASE 12 24.8.84
R.N. was arrested on the 24.8.85 in terms of the Emergency Power Regulation and was detained at Dete Police Station. On the 8.9.85 a sack was placed over R.N.’s head and he was assaulted on the buttocks and thigh with a hose pipe and on the soles of his feet with a plank of wood. Approximately four people were involved in the assault. Nine other people arrested in connection with the same allegations were assaulted in a similar manner and R.N. could hear their cries. On the 27.9.85 R.N. was brought before a Magistrate on charges under the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act (35 days in detention). A medical report is available.
CASE 13 28.8.85
M.C. was arrested by Pisi Bulawayo on the 28.8.85. Repeated requests for access by his legal practitioner were met with evasion from the Acting Commissioner (in charge of Matabeleland), and in the case of the arresting detail (Section Officer CHIRENDA) with deliberate lies. After access had been denied for some 7 days a habeas corpus order was made through the High Court in Bulawayo on the 3.9.85. Access was finally granted on 5.9.85. M.C. was not physically assaulted but was subjected to ill-treatment in a variety of ways: he was kept in solitary confinement for the duration of his detention (16 days in all), was kept without food and water for long periods on two occasions – over 24 hours on one occasion and about 21 hours on the other, was subjected to abusive and aggressive interrogation, was threatened with torture and was denied communication with his lawyer (despite repeated requests) for 9 days. M.C. was released on 12.9.85.
(C & W)
CASE 14 8.9.85
D.M. was taken from his parent’s home on the 8.9.85 by unknown plain clothes policemen. On the 19.9.85 his legal practitioner established that he was being held by Pisi at Stops Camp. However, when his legal practitioner saw him on the 20.9.85 he was advised that the matter was being dealt with by C I D Law and Order Department. C I D did not seem to know anything about his detention and when D.M. was seen again on the 26.9.85 he still had not been interviewed, interrogated or served with a Detention Order. Pisi were approached on this issue and did not seem to know who was dealing with his case. On the 27.9.85 D.M. was released (20 days in detention) without being charged and without having been given a reason whatsoever for his detention.
CASE 15 13.9.85
I.N. was arrested by Pisi Bulawayo on the 13.9.85 and detained at Stops Camp along with some 100 Bulawayo City Council employees detained at about the same time. On the 17.9.85 he was served with a Detention Order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations when he was interrogated (no force was used). I.N. was not interrogated or interviewed again until his release without charge on the 19.10.85 (37 days in detention).
CASE 16 13.9.85
A.T. was arrested by Pisi Bulawayo on the 13.9.85 and was detained at Figtree and then Stops Camp along with other City Council employees. He was served with a detention order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations on the 16.9.85 and was interrogated (no force used) on the 16.9.85 and 19.9.85. A.T. was not interrogated or interviewed again until his release without charge on 19.10.85 (37 days in detention).
CASE 17 21.9.85
S.M. was arrested on the 21.9.85 by uniformed Police details in Bulawayo and was detained at Luveve Police Station. On the 23.9.85 his legal practitioner requested that he be given access to S.M. but this was refused by INSPECTOR CHIDINGA and O/C CHINANGA. No assistance was forthcoming from Senior Assistant Commissioner TONDE. An ex parte petition was presented to a Judge in chambers and was granted. However, by the time service of the order was effected and the legal practitioner had arrived at Luveve S.M. had been moved to Tjolotjo. Further representations to senior Police Officers proved fruitless and a further petition for an interdictum de homine libero exhibendo was launched on the 25.9.85. The petition was granted and a few hours after service thereof S.M. was released from custody. No charge was brought against him.
CASE 18 22.9.85
F. was arrested by uniformed Police details from Bulawayo Central at 7.30am for having failed to appear in court in terms of a traffic ticket. F.’s legal practitioner attended at Bulawayo Central Police Station at 8.30am on the 22.9.85 and requested the Duty Inspector MADONGWE to grant bail in terms of Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. This was refused. The Duty Magistrate was contacted and he drew the written authority for bail and left it at the Police Station for the Inspector’s attention. Notwithstanding the Magistrate’s authority Inspector MADONGWE still declined to grant bail and asked the legal practitioner to approach the Duty Inspector at Mzilikazi where F. had been transferred to in the meantime. On arrival at Mzilikazi the legal practitioner was advised that Mzilikazi did not have its own Duty Inspector but fell under Bulawayo Central. The legal practitioner returned to Bulawayo Central where, after a lengthy argument, Inspector MADONGWE continued to refuse bail. F. was finally released on the 23.9.85 after being sentenced to pay a fine.
CASE 19 24.10.85
T.S. was arrested on the 24.10.85 on a charge of fraud. T.S. was denied access both physically and by telephone to her legal practitioner. T.S.’s legal practitioner spent more than an hour at Bulawayo Central trying to get access and when permission was finally given a police detail was told to come and stand near client and legal practitioner in order to “listen to what you (the legal practitioner) was saying to your client”. This is a breach of the right of confidentiality between legal practitioner and client.
CASE 20 29.10.85
L.K. was detained by C I O in Harare on the 29.10.85. On the 8.11.85 (11 days after his arrest) was served with a detention order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations. On the 29.10.85, 30.10.85 and 31.10.85 L.K. was badly beaten by members of the C I O in Harare. He was handcuffed and suffocated when a canvas bag was tied over his head. On the 21.11.85 L.K. was brought before a Magistrate in Bulawayo to confirm a warned and cautioned statement he had given to C I O. L.K. declined to confirm the statement and advised the Magistrate that he had been severely beaten. On the 27.11.85 L.K. was served with another detention order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations whilst still in detention. On the 8.1.86 (after having been detained for 72 days) L.K. was served with a detention order in terms of Section 17 of the Emergency Powers Regulation, signed by the Minister of Home Affairs.
CASE 21 29.10.85
T.N. was arrested by plain clothes policemen on the 29.10.85 and was detained at Esigodini Police Station. T.N. was released from detention on the 30.11.85 (33 days in detention) without any charges being brought against him. At no time was he served with a Section 17 detention order authorizing his detention for a period longer than 30 days.
CASE 22 1.11.85
C.B. (see case number 5 supra) was re-arrested by C I O on the 1.11.85 and was served with a detention order in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations on the 4.11.85. C.B. was served with a detention order (dated the 11.12.85 – 41 days after being detained) made in terms of Section 17 of the Emergency Powers Regulations on the 13.1.86.
CASE 23 9.11.85
G.M. and 80 others were arrested by Pisi at Dete on the 9.11.85. On the 11.11.85 they were taken to Bulawayo where they were detained at Stops Camp. All but one were beaten to various degrees but A.M. was severely beaten on his back. On the 13.11.85 one P.D. and a legal practitioner by sheer chance saw and spoke to A.M. in the back of a police landrover near Western Commange. The legal practitioner asked A.M. to bare his back and when he did so the legal practitioner observed several welts across his back varying in length from approximately nine inches to one foot. The skin had been broken in several places. He also saw two marks across his right wrist which has been left by burns he had received. Legal Practitioners, appointed by the company which employed all 9 detainees, repeatedly requested access to the employees but this was denied. On the 28.11.85 (20 days after the first had been detained) their legal practitioner telephoned Inspector CHAMBA of Pisi to request access. Access was again denied on the grounds that they were all state witnesses, were not in detention as they were in witness quarters and that the legal practitioner had no right to see his clients. On the 29.11.85, by way of an ex parte petition, an order was obtained through the High Court compelling access. The order was served on Inspector CHAMBA on the 2.12.85. On the 3.12.85 one Section Officer CHIRENDA of Pisi telephoned the legal practitioner to advise that all 9 clients had been released and that they had gone back to their communal homes in Dete. It was established that they had not in fact been released and on the 6.12.85 the legal practitioner arrived unannounced at Stops Camp where he was able to see all 9 clients. It was then established that, contrary to what Inspector CHAMBA and Section officer CHIRENDA had advised, 8 of the clients had been in detention (not witness quarters) until the 1.12.85 when they were moved to witness quarters and had to remain within the confines of the Police Camp and one A.M. was held in detention at Njube Police Station right up until 6.12.85. The legal practitioner noticed that A.M. was the only client wearing new clean clothes. When asked in the presence of Inspector CHAMBA about this he said that a relative had brought him the clothes that morning (having earlier said that he had not seen anyone other than policemen since the 19.11.85). The legal practitioner then asked A.M. to take off his shirt and turn around whereupon Inspector CHAMBA said that he could not “as there were ladies present”. The legal practitioner suggested that the ladies leave the room whereupon Inspector CHAMBA flatly refused to allow A.M. to take his shirt off. (One I.M., a fellow employee of A.M., saw A.M. at Njube Police Station on the 12.11.85 with blood stains on the back of the khaki overalls he was wearing at the time of his arrest). It has subsequently been ascertained from A.M. himself that he was severely beaten with an electric cable and burnt on his back and arms by members of Pisi. All 9 clients were released by Pisi on the 6.12.85. On the 13.1.86 the High Court granted a final order of costs on the legal practitioner and client scale (a punitive measure) against the Member of Home Affairs and Inspector CHAMBA.
CASE 24 10.11.85
I.M. was arrested by Inspector CHAMBA of Pisi on the night of the 10.11.85 at Dete. On 12.12.85 I.M. was interrogated by two members of Pisi at Stops Camp. Inspector CHAMBA walked into the office and asked whether I.M. had admitted to anything and when the interrogators advised he had not Inspector CHAMBA slapped I.M. several times about the head and face. Later Inspector CHAMBA returned with a canvas strap about two feet in length which he then used to hit I.M. about the head and face. Inspector CHAMBA then began interrogating I.M. and one of the other officers came up from behind and pointed a pistol at the back of I.M.’s head. During the entire interrogation which lasted most of the afternoon, repeated threats were made regarding the use of electric shock treatment and death.
(WLB, JPKW and CBH)
CASE 25 8.11.85
A.E. was arrested by Inspector CHAMBA of Pisi Bulawayo at Dete at 10.00pm on the 8.11.85. He was taken to Hwange where he was threatened by Inspector CHAMBA. CHAMBA advised A.E. that if he did not co-operate he would be killed – they would make it look as if he died of a heart attack. On the 11.11.85 A.E. was told it was his last chance to confess and if he did not he would be tortured. CHAMBA gave A.E. a knife and told A.E. to kill himself with it. On the 11.11.85 A.E. was driven through to Stops Camp Bulawayo. On the 12.11.85 A.E. was taken from his cell and continuously interrogated for 23 hours until 10.00am on the 13.11.85. During this time A.E. was repeatedly threatened, assaulted and abused. Inspector CHAMBA hit A.E. with an open hand several times and knocked him off his chair. CHAMBA also armed himself with a canvas belt and struck A.E. with repeated blows across the upper body. A.E. was ordered to remove his shirt and lie on the floor on his stomach. CHAMBA then sat on his back, grabbed his hair on both sides and attempted to bang A.E.’s head on the ground. A.E. was also threatened with the arrest of his aged mother, sister and wife. Legal Practitioners were instructed to represent A.E. on the 12.11.85 but access was repeatedly denied until 4.00pm on the 15.11.85 when the Officer Commanding Police, Matabeleland intervened. CHAMBA had advised the legal practitioner that A.E. was being held at SIPEPA Police Station (he was in fact only taken there on the afternoon of the 13.11.85 and brought back on the 15.11.85). On the morning of the 16.11.85 A.E. was taken back to SIPEPA and his legal practitioner only saw him again on the 25.11.85 when he was brought back to Bulawayo. A.E. was released on the 6.12.85 and the charges initially brought against him have been withdrawn before plea because of lack of evidence.
CASE 26 11.11.85
N.S. (see case number 8 supra) was re-arrested by Pisi on the 11.11.85 and was served with a detention order made in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations on the 11.11.85. On the 8.1.86 (after 59 days in detention) N.S. was released with no charges brought against him, and with no Section 17 detention order even having been served on him.
CASE 27 15.11.85
S. was arrested on the 15.11.85 by Section Officer CHIRENDA of Pisi and was served with a detention order made in terms of Section 53(1) of the Emergency Powers Regulations which alleged that he was involved in the recruitment of dissidents. S. was held by Pisi until the 20.11.85 when he was released. No charges have been brought against S. but when he was released Pisi advised that his wife (who had not been detained) was to be charged under Section 12 and 25 of the Immigration Act. An important factor to note is that S. was deeply involved prior to his arrest during 1985 in investigating the National Railways of Zimbabwe “Botswana Housing” scandal which is presently before the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee.
CASE 28 13.11.85
E.S. was arrested on the 13.11.85 by Tjolotjo Police and was detained at Tjolotjo Police Station until the 16.11.85 when she was taken away by soldiers. Despite communication with Police at the time of writing this report her whereabouts are still unknown.
(S & S)
CASE 29 18.11.85
M. went unaccountably missing on the 18.11.85. Legal practitioners were instructed to locate her on the 21.11.85 and eventually it was discovered that Pisi Bulawayo had detained her. Access was granted the same day and the legal practitioner was advised that no reasons had been given for her detention, save that she had been detained on instructions of Pisi Mwenezi. Section Officer CHIRENDA of Pisi refused to release her. M. was then transferred to Mwenezi Police Station upon the orders of Inspector PAMGWAGWA. Several attempts were made to contact Inspector PAMGWAGWA by M.’s legal practitioner but he only got through on the 25.11.85. The legal practitioner was advised that M. had never been arrested, had only been apprehended to make indications, and was free to return home. M. was finally allowed to return home to Bulawayo on the 28.11.85 (11 days unlawfully detained). At no time was she served with a detention order.
CASE 30 29.11.85
L. and G. were arrested on the 29.11.85 by Pisi because G. was riding a motorcycle without a helmet on. They were then advised that they were being held in terms of the Emergency Power Regulations and were detained at Stops Camp. On the 30.11.85 both were beaten, L. more so than G. Both were released on the 2.12.85 without being charged. L. was examined by a doctor on the 3.12.85. The medical report, which details a severe bruise on L.’s right cheek and small bruise on his left cheek, is available.