Family raises the alarm over whereabouts of Findlay after police arrest, allege harassment

The family of businessman, Harry Findlay, has raised deep concern over his safety, health and legal rights following his removal from police custody on Sunday. The family said Findlay was taken from detention on August 9, 2026 at around 18:00 hours and transported in an unmarked vehicle to an undisclosed location. The family said they were not informed about which state institution removed him, and that the transfer was done in the absence of his lawyers.

“When family members demanded to know what was happening and which State Institution was taking him out of the police station in the absence of his lawyers, no answers were provided,” they stated. Findlay’s family added that attempts to follow the vehicle to establish his whereabouts were met with threats and effort to ascertain his location was blocked by police officers at the scene. The family further raised concerns over legal procedure regarding the transfer.“We are advised by our lawyers that the transfer to a maximum security correctional facility requires legal authority.

No such authority has been shown to his family,” reads the statement. Findlay’s health in which they said authorities were aware of his medical condition and that full medical history had already been provided. The family said his condition required daily medication and warned of serious consequences if treatment was interrupted.

[paywall]

“When he was removed his prescription medication was left behind, his medical condition requires daily medication failure to take his medication poses a serious and immediate risk to his health and life,” the family stated. They said they had appealed to authorities to allow them deliver his medication but had not received a response as of the time of issuing the statement. The family added that they had instructed their lawyers to pursue legal action.

“We have requested our lawyers to demand the immediate release of Mr. Findlay or that he be brought before a Court to answer any charges,” reads the statement. They stressed that they were not seeking special treatment, but equal application of the law and had remained restrained throughout the process and avoided inflammatory statements.

[/paywall]