JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 113 ____________________________________________________________________ The lawyers for Mr Moyo and Mr Mapombere pressed that the three police officers in attendance (the investigating officer, the arresting officer, and the officer-in-charge) be incarcerated at the High Court cells until such time as the detained men had been produced. The lawyers did this because, they argued, the judge had been misled that the prisoners were being detained at Harare Central Police Station. The judge turned down the application for the incarceration of the police officers, but at around 9.48 pm that evening he issued a habeas corpus writ ordering that Mr Moyo and Mr Mapombere be immediately given access to their lawyers and that the police produce them before the High Court the following morning at 9.00 a.m. The following day the two men were brought before the High Court, but well after the specified time of 9.00 am. The police had also complied with the order that they be allowed access to their lawyers. The lawyers for the applicants informed the judge that while the hearing was in progress the previous day the police had taken the two men to the National Park at Lake Chivero. The lawyers also pointed out the very tenuous nature of the allegations against the two. The police had still given no instructions to the prosecutor. There was no opposing affidavit to the application for the release of the men. Technically, therefore, the State was in default. Despite this default, the court found that the police had held a reasonable suspicion that Mr Moyo and Mr Mapombere had committed an offence. The reasonable suspicion had been formed on the basis of the two letters allegedly written by them. These letters required full investigation and the court could not make a ruling that they were forgeries. The court did not address the issue of whether there were any valid grounds for their continued detention such as that there was a prospect of the men absconding or interfering with witnesses. The court found that although the preamble to the warned and cautioned statements they had signed referred to a non-existent section in the Public Order and Security Act, the allegations could fit another section in the Act, which the court identified. Mr Justice Garwe did, however, deplore the actions by the police for failing to cooperate with the Attorney-General’s office. He said the police conduct was unacceptable and that the Attorney-General’s officer and the Commissioner of Police should carry out an inquiry into this matter. On the issue of the search warrant, Mr