The claim that Hudah and Waffah are my mother's primary caretakers is rejected by Mother Zainab's own words in this video clip, where she says she doesn't want to be with them, referring to Khalid, Waffah, and Hudah. My mother was diagnosed with short-term memory loss, but she can recall the past in full detail and have normal conversations, as known by myself, my brother Mujahid, and extended family. My siblings Khalid, Waffah, and Hudah are often verbally abusive towards my mother due to her condition, feeding her false narratives. This video clip is one of many instances where my mother and I have a genuine conversation; she told me she felt unsafe in the main house and wanted to be with me, in my car.
Embedded Files
WahhahinyardAuntieBeiraAuntieAmina.mp4Waffah have no respect for the elderly family members including her own Mother Zainab, this is the type of chaos Zainab and other family members much older than her face everyday, she comes from her home and create problems and Khalid and Hudah are always online with each other.
mummyfall.mp4The brutal fight instigated by Waffah and Hudah on 12th December 2025 led to my mother confessing that it was Waffah and Hudah who told Khalid to fight my brother Mujahid. Whilst sitting in the back room working on a website, I heard the loud commotion and immediately ran into the main house to stop the fight. My next priority was to ensure Khalid didn't pick up a sharp object, given his history of stabbing me with a knife - he's extremely violent. The entire footage is recorded and held by Khalid in his cloud. I kept my cool, didn't fight, and only intervened to stop the fight and prevent Khalid from grabbing a weapon. Hudah was also violent, constantly hitting Mujahid on the mouth and jaw, despite his medical condition. My mother, Zainab, also stated on this video clip that Hudah and Waffah told Khalid to fight Mujahid. Tragically, this was also the day my mother Zainab fell and hurt her knees, which has left her with walking problems.
Respondents Breached the following clause in AnnexureA
8.1.1. Prohibition of Contact and Stalking:
The Respondents are prohibited from:
(a) Contacting, communicating with, or attempting to contact or communicate with the Applicants, or either of them, by any means whatsoever, including in person, by telephone, by electronic communication, through social media, or through any third party.
(b) Being within 500 meters of the Applicants’ residence at Haywood Road, Rondebosch East, Cape Town, or any location where the Applicants may be present.
(c) Surveilling, monitoring, or causing any person to surveil or monitor the Applicants.
Annexure A
IN THE REGIONAL COURT FOR THE REGIONAL DIVISION OF WESTERN CAPE HELD AT WYNBERG
Annexure A Served to Hudah and Waffah
In the matter between:
ZAINAB SAFODIEN FIRST APPLICANT
and
WHALID SAFODIEN SECOND APPLICANT
and
KHALID SAFODIEN FIRST RESPONDENT
WAFFAH SAFODIEN SECOND RESPONDENT
HUDAH SOLOMONS THIRD RESPONDENT
APPLICANTS’ URGENT APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER IN TERMS OF THE PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 17 OF 2011, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 116 OF 1998, AND THE OLDER PERSONS ACT 13 OF 2006
1. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES
1.1. The First Applicant is ZAINAB SAFODIEN, an 82-year-old female pensioner and vulnerable elder residing at 58 Haywood Road, Rondebosch East, Cape Town. She is diagnosed with a short-term memory impairment and is the mother of the Second Applicant and the Respondents.
1.2. The Second Applicant is WHALID SAFODIEN, an adult male, who is the eldest son of the First Applicant, her lifelong primary caregiver, and the curator of her affairs de facto. He resides at the same property as the First Applicant.
1.3. The First Respondent is KHALID SAFODIEN, the son of the First Applicant, who currently resides in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
1.4. The Second Respondent is WAFFAH SAFODIEN, the daughter of the First Applicant, who resides at 10 Station Road, Athlone, Cape Town.
1.5. The Third Respondent is HUDAH SOLOMONS, the daughter of the First Applicant, who resides at 11 Eghan Road, Eghan Hof, Wynberg, Cape Town.
1.6. This application is brought urgently by the Applicants, jointly, against the Respondents for a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011, the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, and the Older Persons Act 13 of 2006.
2. JURISDICTION
This Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter in terms of Section 2(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 and Section 2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011, as the acts of harassment and domestic violence occurred within its area of jurisdiction, and the Applicants reside within its area of jurisdiction.
3. GROUNDS FOR URGENCY
This application is certified as urgent in terms of Rule 60 of the Magistrate’s Court Rules. The Applicants submit that substantial and irreparable harm will result if immediate relief is not granted for the following reasons:
3.1. Imminent Lethal Threat: The First Respondent has a documented history of lethal violence, having stabbed his brother, targeting the heart, in 1998. He has recently escalated from orchestrating covert abuse to issuing explicit death threats, including stating that the Second Applicant is “next” and that he is “going in for the kill” against the Third Eldest Brother. These threats, combined with his historical capacity for lethal violence and the current pattern of overt physical aggression, demonstrate an imminent risk of serious harm or death.
3.2. Ongoing Physical Violence and Medical Sabotage: On 12 December 2025, the Respondents physically assaulted the Third Eldest Brother in the presence of the First Applicant, causing her to collapse and sustain a knee injury. During this incident, the First Applicant’s prescribed 6:00 PM medication was delayed.
3.3. Unlawful Occupation and Control: The Second and Third Respondents do not reside at the Applicants’ home but unlawfully occupy it against the express wishes of the First Applicant. They physically block the Second Applicant’s access to the First Applicant, switch off the intercom system to isolate her, and have taken her phone to cut off her communication with the outside world.
3.4. Active Evidence Suppression: The First Respondent has disabled the Second Applicant’s remote camera access and disconnected the internet router to prevent documentation of their abuse. He has refused to release footage of the 12 December 2025 assault, which would irrefutably prove his violence and the First Applicant’s injury.
3.5. Recent Malicious Acts: On 26 February 2026, the Second and Third Respondents physically blocked the Second Applicant’s vehicle, with the Third Respondent striking the rear window and both intentionally placing their bodies against his car. They subsequently made false statements to the Lansdowne Police Service, accusing him of assault and malicious damage to property. This culminated in the Second Applicant’s arrest on 13 March 2026 based on their perjured statements.
3.6. Isolation and Coercive Control: Following the Second Applicant’s arrest, the Second and Third Respondents changed the locks to his workspace, seized the First Applicant’s mobile phone to prevent her from contacting him or other family members, and continue to control access to her, holding her against her will.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Respondents’ systematic conduct constitutes flagrant and ongoing violations of the First Applicant’s fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996:
Constitutional Right
Violation
Evidence
Section 10: Human Dignity
Reduction to an object of control; forced dependency; public humiliation; ignoring her express commands and wishes.
First Applicant’s repeated commands for Respondents to leave; her statement, “I no longer want to be with Waffah, Hudah, and Khalid.”
Section 12: Freedom and Security of the Person
Physical violence; psychological terror; medical endangerment; isolation and holding against her will.
12 December 2025 assault; withholding of medication; taking her phone; physical blocking of the Second Applicant.
Section 14: Privacy
24/7 surveillance; cameras installed inside home; confiscation of personal phone; unlawful entry into her home.
Camera system with microphones; seizure of First Applicant’s phone on or about 13 March 2026.
Section 25: Property
Arbitrary deprivation of assets; theft of motor vehicle and medical bag; unlawful changing of locks.
Theft of car and medical bag (Aug 2025); lock-changing incident on or about 13 March 2026.
Section 26: Housing
Unlawful occupation; constructive eviction of the Second Applicant; holding the First Applicant against her will.
Second and Third Respondents’ refusal to leave; blocking of Second Applicant’s access to his home.
Section 27: Healthcare
Deliberate obstruction of medical access; withholding of medication; preventing access to personal physician.
Withholding medication on 12 Dec 2025; preventing Second Applicant from performing his caregiving duties.
5. CRIMINAL CONDUCT ESTABLISHED
The Respondents’ actions constitute several criminal offences under South African law, which are set out in the table below. These offences form the factual matrix upon which this application is based.
Crime
Perpetrators
Evidence / Particulars
Assault (Common Law)
Khalid, Hudah,Waffah
12 Dec 2025 attack on Third Eldest Brother; First Applicant’s collapse and knee injury; physical blocking of Second Applicant’s vehicle (26 Feb 2026).
Intimidation (Common Law)
Khalid, Waffah, Hudah
“He is next” threat (16 Dec 2025); “going in for the kill” (24 Dec 2025); “I will send my people” threat (2 Jan 2026).
Theft
Hudah, Waffah
Theft of motor vehicle (Aug 2025); theft of medical bag (Aug 2025); theft of medication (18 Nov 2025); theft of First Applicant’s phone (March 2026).
Elder Abuse (Older Persons Act 13 of 2006, s26)
Khalid, Waffah, Hudah
Systematic psychological, physical, and medical abuse documented over an 8-month period, including isolation, coercion, and deprivation of care.
Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011)
Waffah, Hudah
Constant unlawful returns to the property despite First Applicant’s commands; physical blocking; surveillance; refusal to surrender keys.
Defeating the Ends of Justice
Khalid, Waffah, Hudah
Evidence suppression; camera access removal; internet router disabling; false police reports against the Second Applicant.
Perjury (Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s319(3))
Waffah, Hudah
Lying to the Lansdowne Police Service on 26 February 2026 by falsely stating that the Second Applicant ran them over with his car.
Crimen Injuria
Waffah, Hudah,
Public humiliation; dignity impairment; gaslighting campaign; making false and injurious statements to the police to injure the Second Applicant’s reputation.
6. DETAILED ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
6.1. The 12 December 2025 Assault and Medical Sabotage
On 12 December 2025, the First Respondent, acting in concert with the Second and Third Respondents, physically assaulted the Third Eldest Brother (Mujahid) at the Applicants’ residence. The Second Applicant was present. The Second Applicant has video testimony of the First Applicant stating that the Second and Third Respondents “told Khalid to hit the 3rd eldest brother (Testimony of Zainab on Zuzu - Case study on Video).” During this altercation, the First Applicant collapsed, sustaining injuries to both knees, which remain a source of pain. The Respondents deliberately delayed the First Applicant’s prescribed 6:00 PM medication, weaponising her medical vulnerability for control. Following the assault, the First Respondent disabled the Second Applicant’s remote access to the security cameras and disconnected the internet router to suppress the footage of his crimes.
6.2. The Campaign of Harassment by Waffah and Hudah
The Second and Third Respondents, acting as ground operatives for the First Respondent, have engaged in a sustained campaign of harassment and coercive control. On numerous occasions, the Second Respondent physically blocks the Second Applicant’s access to the main house to prevent him from attending to the First Applicant. She switches off the intercom system that the First Applicant uses to call for assistance.
On 26 February 2026, the Second and Third Respondents engaged in a coordinated attack. As the Second Applicant attempted to leave the property to run errands for the First Applicant, the Second Respondent positioned herself in front of his vehicle, and the Third Respondent stood behind it, banging on the rear window. They both recorded the incident on their mobile phones. As the Second Applicant slowly reversed, the Third Respondent intentionally placed her legs against his car’s bumper. As he drove forward, the Second Respondent did the same. Their objective was to provoke an incident and create a false narrative of assault.
When the Second Applicant returned, the Third Respondent repeatedly closed the electric gate on him using a remote control, preventing his entry onto the property where he resides. When the police arrived later that evening, called by the Respondents, the Second and Third Respondents falsely stated that the Second Applicant had run them over with his car. When advised to obtain a J88 form (medical report), the Applicants overheard the Respondents say, “We never thought of the J88,” revealing the falsity of their accusations. The police tested the gate and confirmed there was no damage.
6.3. The False Arrest and Subsequent Isolation
On Friday, 13 March 2026, the Second Applicant was arrested for assault based entirely on the false statements made by the Second and Third Respondents. During his detention, the Respondents did not inform the First Applicant or any other family member. They used this opportunity to escalate their abuse: they changed the locks to the Second Applicant’s workspace, seized the First Applicant’s mobile phone, and physically prevented her from contacting him or the outside world. Upon his release, the Second Applicant found the First Applicant distressed and isolated. The First Applicant reiterated her wish not to be with the Second and Third Respondents and confirmed that her phone had been taken.
7. ELIMINATION OF THE RESPONDENTS AS SUITABLE CAREGIVERS
The Second and Third Respondents are fundamentally and irrevocably disqualified from serving as caregivers for the First Applicant. Their conduct demonstrates a pattern of abuse, not care. They have:
7.1. Stolen her medication, car, medical bag, and mobile phone.
7.2. Assaulted her sons in her presence and physically blocked her primary caregiver.
7.3. Gaslit and psychologically terrorised her, exploiting her cognitive vulnerability.
7.4. Isolated her from her chosen support system by taking her phone and blocking access.
7.5. Refused to obey her explicit commands to leave her home.
7.6. Suppressed evidence of their crimes and made false statements to the police.
7.7. Violated her constitutional rights to dignity, security, privacy, and freedom.
To allow the Second and Third Respondents to continue in any caregiving role would be to institutionalise elder abuse. The First Applicant has repeatedly and consistently expressed her wish to live with the Second Applicant and the Third Eldest Brother (Mujahid). Her cognitive vulnerability does not invalidate this preference; it requires that the State respect her autonomy and protect her from those who exploit her.
8. RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE the Applicants pray that this Honourable Court grants the following relief:
8.1. INTERIM RELIEF
Pending the final determination of this application, an interim protection order is granted in the following terms:
8.1.1. Prohibition of Contact and Stalking:
The Respondents are prohibited from:
(a) Contacting, communicating with, or attempting to contact or communicate with the Applicants, or either of them, by any means whatsoever, including in person, by telephone, by electronic communication, through social media, or through any third party.
(b) Being within 500 meters of the Applicants’ residence at Haywood Road, Rondebosch East, Cape Town, or any location where the Applicants may be present.
(c) Surveilling, monitoring, or causing any person to surveil or monitor the Applicants.
8.1.2. Surrender of Keys, Property, and Surveillance Materials:
The Respondents are ordered to:
(a) Immediately surrender all keys to the Applicants’ residence to the Lansdowne Police Station within 24 hours of service of this order.
(b) Return all property belonging to the First Applicant, including her mobile phone, to the Lansdowne Police Station within 24 hours of service of this order.
(c) Preserve all surveillance footage from the camera system at the residence, particularly from 12 December 2025, and deliver all hard drives, DVR units, and storage devices containing such footage to the Lansdowne Police Station within 24 hours of service of this order.
(d) Provide all passwords and access codes necessary for forensic examination of said devices.
8.1.3. Prohibition of Entry and Interference:
The Respondents are prohibited from:
(a) Entering the Applicants’ residence for any purpose whatsoever.
(b) Interfering with, obstructing, or attempting to influence the First Applicant’s medical care.
(c) Withholding, hiding, or disposing of any medication prescribed for the First Applicant.
(d) Accessing any bank accounts, pension funds, or financial assets belonging to the First Applicant.
8.1.4. Authorisation for Peaceful Occupation:
The Second Applicant is authorised to reside at and occupy the property at Haywood Road, Rondebosch East, Cape Town, without interference from the Respondents.
8.2. FINAL RELIEF
Upon final determination, the Court is respectfully requested to confirm the interim relief as a final protection order for a period of not less than five years, with the following additional provisions:
8.2.1. Warrant of Arrest: A warrant of arrest shall be issued authorising the South African Police Service to arrest any Respondent who contravenes any provision of this order.
8.2.2. Costs: The Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as between attorney and client.
9. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, WHALID SAFODIEN, do hereby make oath and state that:
9.1. I am the Second Applicant in this matter and the eldest son of the First Applicant. I am her lifelong primary caregiver.
9.2. The facts contained in this application, including the detailed account of the Respondents’ conduct, are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct.
9.3. I have personal knowledge of the events described, having been present during the incidents, having documented the abuse since August 2025, and having witnessed my mother’s suffering, fear, and distress.
9.4. The First Applicant has repeatedly and consistently stated her wish to live with me and the Third Eldest Brother (Mujahid) and to have no contact with the Respondents.
9.5. I have a genuine fear that the First Respondent, based on his history of lethal violence and his explicit death threats, will cause serious bodily harm or death to myself, my brother, or my mother.
9.6. I have a genuine fear that the Second and Third Respondents will continue to harass, intimidate, and psychologically abuse my mother, causing further deterioration of her health and well-being.
9.7. I believe this application is necessary to protect my mother’s constitutional rights and to ensure the safety of both myself and her from the Respondents’ ongoing campaign of abuse, which culminated in my malicious arrest and her isolation.
SWORN TO BEFORE ME at Cape Town on this ______ day of _________________ 2026.
WHALID SAFODIEN (Applicant)
COMMISSIONER OF OATHS
10. URGENCY CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, acting as the legal representative for the Applicants, certify that this matter is urgent and requires immediate intervention by this Honourable Court because:
10.1. Explicit death threats have been made by the First Respondent, who has demonstrated lethal capacity.
10.2. The Second and Third Respondents are currently unlawfully occupying the First Applicant’s home, controlling her access to the outside world, and have isolated her.
10.3. Any delay will place the First Applicant, a vulnerable 82-year-old woman, and the Second Applicant, her primary caregiver, at an imminent risk of serious harm.
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
TO: THE REGISTRAR
REGIONAL COURT, WYNBERG
AND TO: The Respondents, at their respective addresses and, for the First Respondent, also via electronic means to the email address provided by the Applicants.
DATED at Cape Town on this ______ day of _________________ 2026.
Ref:
www.zainab.co.za supporting the above application
Notes
On 26 February 2026, my two sisters, Waffah and Hudah, came to my mother’s home from their respective houses. Waffah resides at 10 Station Road, Athlone, and Hudah resides at Eghan Road, Eghan Hof, Wynberg.
I was attending to my daily chores from where I work—the separate entrance at my mother’s home, where I also reside. During the day, I work in the separate entrance, and at night, I sleep in my bedroom inside the main house, which is next to my mother’s bedroom. The immediate and extended families can vouch for this, as I have been my mother’s primary caregiver all her life.
During the day, I am in and out of the main house whenever my mother calls me. She normally uses the intercom, but whenever my two sisters arrive, Waffah switches off the intercom that my mother uses to contact me in case she needs me or in an emergency. The tenants who use the same intercom can confirm when it is switched off. Whenever Waffah enters the main house and I need to enter as well, she physically stands in my way, blocking my access to my mother. She positions herself in front of me as if hoping I will push her and make contact. Sometimes, I walk in a defensive position, holding my hands and arms to my head, and manage to walk past her. This is what she does every day when I enter the main house. She constantly physically blocks my access.
On another occasion in the morning, she did the same thing when her son Osama was present, and this incident was recorded on his mobile phone. Both Waffah and her son Osama live at the same address where Waffah resides 10 Station Road Athlone. They come to my mother’s home and create a crisis. My mother has repeatedly stated that she does not want to be with my sisters Waffah and Hudah, but they never follow her wishes. They disrespect my mother’s wishes all the time. This footage is also on the website I created to safeguard myself as the eldest son.
On the afternoon of 26 February 2026, I was going about my normal chores and went to the shop for my mother, as she likes eating sushi and fish. As I left the back entrance where I work most of the time, I saw my sisters taking positions in front of and behind my car. Waffah took the front position, and Hudah stood behind my car. As I started my car, Hudah began banging and hitting my rear window aggressively. They were both recording themselves. I started my car as I did not know what was going on with the two of them. I then proceeded to reverse my car out of the yard. Hudah was standing behind my car as I moved at the speed of a turtle, very slowly, so as not to hurt anyone. As I reversed, I saw my sister Hudah putting her legs toward my car’s bumper. I then moved forward, and my sister Waffah was in front of me, trying to stop me again from moving out of the driveway. They come from their own homes creating these problems and crises.
After I turned my car in the driveway, I proceeded toward the electric gate to continue my daily chores and found Hudah standing in front of my car with her legs touching my car’s bumper. She did this on purpose while I was moving forward. I saw her gently scraping her knees on my car’s front bumper intentionally. She stood in front of my car as I moved forward at the speed of a turtle. I am a very good driver and proceeded toward the exit with no physical injuries to either of my sisters. After leaving, I went to Shoprite to buy groceries for my mother.
The entire event up to this point is on their mobile devices, as they recorded me from the time I got into my car.
When I left, I went shopping and returned half an hour later. As I pressed the remote button to open the driveway gate, it opened halfway and closed again. This time, my sister Hudah was intentionally closing the gate to prevent me from entering the premises where my mother and I stay. Hudah and Waffah do not reside at Haywood Road; they have their own homes. I have never been inside their homes since they married more than 20 years ago. I have always kept to myself and never bothered anyone.
As I entered the premises where I reside at Haywood Road, Hudah closed the gate again with the remote. It became frustrating, so I got out of the car, took the gate off the rail, and pushed it open manually. Hudah then went and closed it again. This was becoming more frustrating. I then got out of the car and pushed the gate off the rail until it fell on its side, with no damage to the gate. In this way, Hudah could not close it. I then proceeded with my car into the driveway, put the gate back on the rail, and tested it; it worked fine as it should. There was no damage to the gate, as it was tested and worked well. I got into my car and proceeded back onto the driveway, and Waffah was standing in front of my car. As I cruised into the driveway at the speed of a turtle, Waffah intentionally put her knees to my car’s bumper. She did this intentionally, hoping to get hurt or to have a reason to claim I drove into her. All of this is on their mobile phones, as they were recording everything.
Both Hudah and Waffah were physically blocking my entry using their bodies. To me, this was totally insane. I cannot understand why any of my sisters would want to do this. As I slowly drove into the driveway, Waffah physically put her knees to my bumper and wanted my car to cause some damage to her knees. This was all done intentionally by Waffah, along with my sister Hudah. During this period, while trying to steer my car away from them at a very slow speed—the same speed as that of a turtle—I accidentally scraped the side of the wall, causing only a few scratches to the wall, and my wheel touched the bottom of the wall, scraping a small piece of cement that can easily be repaired. I reversed my car slowly and then proceeded toward my parking bay in the driveway. I was relieved nobody was injured, and there were no signs of physical injury to anyone, including the fact that nobody was run over by my car in the driveway. All these video footages are on the phones of Waffah and Hudah, who have the entire footage.
Later that evening, the police arrived, as both my sisters had called the Lansdowne police station, stating that the gate was damaged. The police tested the gate, and it was fine. While testing the gate, Hudah started pressing the remote in front of the police, and one police officer became upset. The police ordered her not to press anything, and she stopped. The police soon discovered there was nothing wrong with the gate. Both my sisters told the police I had run them over with the car, and the police said that if that was the case, they should get a J88 form. From that point onward, I overheard my sisters telling each other, “We never thought of the J88,” and they told the police they would get one. I then greeted the police and went back to where I normally work. Both my sisters went into the main house and started arguing with my mother. This argument went on for another half an hour, and my mother swore at my sisters. My mother became very angry, and after half an hour, I saw my sisters leaving with no signs of physical injury.
The next day, my mother told me that she no longer wanted to live in the main house and that she no longer wanted to be with Waffah, Hudah, and Khalid. That was what she told me a few nights after the incident. The video footage of what my mother said is all on the home page of the Zuzu case study.
My sisters have falsely accused me of assault. They sent the police to deliver interim interdicts and a letter regarding the assault to the premises where my mother and I stay, for which I now have to appear in court.
Every time my sister Waffah visits, she physically blocks me from entering the main house where I sleep at night to look after my mother. She has her own house, as does my sister Hudah. I have never laid my hands on any woman in my life, and I will simply not start now. I have always kept a clean criminal record, and I have been a law-abiding citizen my entire life. Both my sisters come to the home where my mother and I reside and create a crisis.
"I have never been to any of my sisters', Waffah and Hudah, homes, nor have I ever eaten a meal in their homes. I keep to myself, and I've bothered nobody all these years."
On Friday, 13 March 2026, I was arrested for assault, and neither my siblings Waffah, Hudah, nor Khalid informed my mother or anyone in the immediate or extended family. The only access I had to the outside world was through a prisoner who had a mobile phone and Facebook, and I requested if I could inform my third eldest brother that I was arrested. I had access to a mobile phone in prison and called my mother. The phone only rang a few times before it went off. As soon as I was released from prison, I went straight home to my mother to see if she was well. My mother, Zainab, told me they had taken her phone, and I noticed that she was not happy with Waffah and Hudah around her. She told myself and my third eldest brother that she wanted to leave with us; she was not happy. I told my mother I would be back in a few days. My sisters made sure my mother had no contact with the outside world. Waffah and Hudah took her phone.
I went to check if all was well at the place where I do my work, and I realised my key was not working. What Waffah and Hudah did was change the lock. My mother never knew the lock was changed, and my mother got angry with them. I have noticed that much of my software compact disks were gone. My mother, who had a copy of the key, opened the door with the assistance of my aunt. At that point, I have no clues what the motive was, but I will need a protection order so I may investigate with the police what was taken and what was put into my separate entrance that could implicate me in some criminal offence. Neither my sister Waffah and Hudah owns the property at Haywood Rd.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse