Judgment No CCZ 4/14 5 Const. Application No SC 207/11 Volume 1. Arrested persons, they averred, are searched by the arresting detail in strict compliance with the terms of the Act and particularly s 41(4) of the Act with reference to women, and all money and articles connected with an offence as well as all things which a prisoner could use to cause harm to himself or others or which could be used to effect his escape are collected from the arrested persons. They denied that the applicants were ordered to remove their ‘undergarments’ because ‘the law does not allow it’ but did not deny that they were made to remove their brassieres. Whatever was meant to be conveyed by the term ‘undergarments’, the respondents’ attitude, as expressed in their heads of argument as well as in oral argument before us, that brassieres are not necessary wearing material within the meaning of s 41 of the Act would appear to support the applicants’ averment that they were made to remove their brassieres. Indeed the respondents in their heads of argument submit: “The Applicants contend that they were made to remove their undergarments and in their founding affidavit the undergarments are specified as brassiere. They argue that it is necessary wearing apparel. Although the brassieres are mentioned in their founding affidavits, in their heads of argument they simply use the word undergarments, which ordinarily would include panties. However since applicants’ case is founded on their founding affidavits, Respondents submit that what Applicants were made to remove were their brassieres.” (My emphasis) We therefore resolve this apparent dispute of fact in favour of the applicants. It was not denied that the applicants were made to remove their shoes as this was ‘standard procedure’. In response to the allegation that the light in the cell was not functioning, they averred that the lighting system at the police station is fully functional.