IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORT

ELIZABETH
SITTING AT PORT ELIZABETH
Case No.: 27/1837/15
In the matter of:
CHRISTOPHOROS CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOU
Applicant
and
THE STATE
Respondent

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION ito S60 OF THE

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 51 OF 1977 (CPA)

I, the undersigned,
CHRISTOPHOROS CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOU
do hereby make oath and say that:
A

BACKGROUND

1. I am the Applicant in this matter.

2. A.

Unless otherwise stated or appears from the context

hereof, the facts

herein contained are within my personal knowledge and
are to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and
correct.
B.

Legal comments are made on the advices of my legal

representatives.
3. I was arrested in this matter on 29 April 2015 at 108
Winterhoek Drive, Vanes Estate, Uitenhage and later charged
with the murder of my wife, Jayde.
4. I have been held in custody from that day to date (a period of
approximately 15 days) during which time I appeared in Court
on 4 May 2015, whereupon the case was remanded to 19 June
2015 for further investigation and I was ordered to be held in
custody.
5. I have thus been held as an awaiting trial prisoner at St Albans
Prison since 4 May 2015.

THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH I HAVE BEEN HELD

6. The conditions under which I am held at St Albans are, to say

the least, despicable, disgusting and contravene not only the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996
(the Constitution) (and more specifically s35 (2)(e) thereof,
but also the Correctional Services Act 11 of 1998 (CSA)
and the Regulations prescribed by the CSA (COSR).
7. In particular, I wish to highlight that these are serious
contraventions of the above obligatory provisions.
8. First and foremost, the Constitution grants every person
arrested, detained and accused to be held under:
2 (e) Conditions of detention that are consistent with
human dignity, including at least exercise and the
provision,

at

the

States

expense,

of

adequate

accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical

treatment.....; (our emphasis)
9. The CSA prescribes regulations (COSR) which relate directly to
the abovementioned section of the Constitution and I therefore
wish to emphasize that: Inmates are entitled to:
9.1. Adequate floor space and adequate cubic capacity
(COSR 3(2)(a)) which reads:
All cell accommodation must have sufficient floor
and cubic capacity space to enable the prisoner to
move freely and sleep comfortably within the
confines of the cell.

Comment: The norms according to the Erasmus report

(this is the report of Mr Justice Nathan Erasmus) are that
every prisoner should have 3.5 square metres for himself
in communal cells. In our cells we barely have 2 square
metres

to

ourselves

and

the

cells

are

horrifically

overcrowded, leading to discomfort, aggression and ones

health.
9.2. Every prisoner is entitled to proper lighting in their cells
(COSR 3(2)(c)), COSR 3 (c) reads:
Any cell utilised for the housing of prisoners must
be sufficiently lighted by natural and artificial
lighting so as to enable a prisoner to read and
write.
Comments: The light that we have in our cell very often
does work and even if it does work is substantially
insufficient to allow anyone to read and write, let alone,
properly see those surrounding you.
9.3. Prisoners are entitled to proper ventilation of their cells.
COSR 3(2)(b) reads:
All accommodation must be ventilated in
accordance with the National Building Regulations
SABS 0400 of 1990 issued in terms of section 16 of
the Standards Act 93(Act 29 of 1993).
Comment: Our accommodation is most certainly not
ventilated save for a small window which is in any event

barred up considerably and to which very few of us, due

to the overcrowding of the cell, have access.
9.4. Every prisoner is entitled to circumstances in which there
are proper sanitary installations for obvious reasons.
COSR 3(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) reads:
(i) In every prison, there must be sufficient,
assessible ablution facilities that must be available
to all prisoners at all times;
(ii) Such facilities must include access to hot and
cold water for washing purposes;
(iii)
In
communal
sleeping

accommodation,

ablution facilities must be partitioned off.

Comment: The ablution facility in our cell is completely
insufficient for all of us to have proper and available
access to it at all times. In addition we do not have
access to hot water after 05h00 and are sometimes lucky
to have access to even cold water.

Furthermore, the

ablution facilities are not partitioned off and each and

every

prisoner

has

to

use

these

facilities

in

an

overcrowded cell with everyone watching him while this

is

being

done.

This

is

terribly

embarrassing

and

humiliating.
Furthermore, in terms of both the Act and the Regulations
a prisoner is entitled to proper general health conditions
and proper health care.
9.5. COSR 7 (1) (13)(b) sets out all the requirements for
proper health care and need not be repeated.

10.

In terms of the CSA (111/1998) the following is

emphasized:
10.1. (Section 7: Accommodation) states that:
.....these requirements must be adequate for
detention under conditions of human dignity....

10.2. In terms of COSR 3 (e)(i), the following is compulsory:

(e)(i) Every prisoner must be provided with a
separate bed and with bedding which provides
adequate warmth for the climatic conditions and
which complies with hygienic requirements as
prescribed by Order....
Comments: In our cell many of us, as a result of the
overcrowding of the prisons, are forced to sleep on the
floor and often, with very little adequate warmth.
10.3. As far as nutrition is concerned, COSR 4(1)(a)-(c) and
4(2)(a)-(e) and 4(3) sets out exactly how we are
supposed to be fed and reads:
4(1) Each prisoner must be provided with a
minimum protein and energy content of:
(a) ....
(b) (b) 2500kilo calories per day for adult males;
and
(c) (c).......

4(2)

The

diet

must

provide

for

balanced

distribution of food items amongst the five major

food groups, namely:
(a) food items rich in calcium;
(b) food items rich in protein;
(c) vegetables and fruit;
(d) cereal;
(e) food items rich in fats and oils.
4(3) Food must be stored, prepared, cooked and
served in compliance with the provisions of the
Foodstuff, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 1972
(Act 54 of 1976) and the principles of good
hygiene.
Comments: The food that we are served falls far short of
what is set out herein as compulsory and the food, to say
the least, is nothing short of disgusting.
10.4. In summary then, all of the peremptory (compulsory)
conditions that are compelled by the Constitution and by
Law to be available to us, are missing and in fact, are
constantly and substantially contravened by Correctional
Services.
11.

During the weekend stabbings took place in prison. On

Sunday evening I was

taken from my communal cell and placed in a single cell. On
enquiring as to why I was moved my parents were told that it
was for my own safety. I will not survive solitary confinement in
a single cell from now up and until my trial.

12.

I wish to raise at this point in time very briefly that I am

also presumed by the Constitution to be innocent (s35 (3)

(h)) and I intend to plead not guilty at my trial.
13.

Therefore, to keep me in custody in these conditions

where I enjoy far more favourable conditions at home, is a

punishment in itself and in circumstances where I have not
yet been convicted of any offence and where I believe I will be
acquitted at the end of the day.
C

PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
14.

I was born on 2 November 1986 in Uitenhage (I am

therefore 28 years of age at present and will be turning 29 on

2 November of this year).
15.

I live at present at 19 Stella Glen, Deacon Road, Kabega

Park, Port Elizabeth and have been living there for the past
five years.
16.

The house I have referred to in the above paragraph, is

mine and is bonded to R550, 000.00.

17.

I am the sole person that can pay that bond and have

been paying that bond ever since I purchased the house. The
furniture in the house is valued at approximately R300,
000.00 and I owe nothing thereon.
18.

I was born in Uitenhage and have lived in the area and

within the confines of South Africa all my life.

19.

I have already handed over the only passport that I have

to my attorney and do not have it in my possession at this

point in time. I have also instructed my attorney to hand it to
the police at any time that they would require him to do so.
20.

Both my parents as well as my two sisters, also live in

South Africa.
21.

I matriculated in 2004 at Muir College in Uitenhage.

Thereafter, I studied for a Business Management Diploma at

Varsity College in Port Elizabeth which I obtained in 2006.
22.

While I was studying for my diploma, I was working as a

medical rep for a company called B-Tabs.

23.

Unfortunately another company called Rambaxy bought

out B-Tabs and as a result, I lost my job, but I continued to

study and eventually obtained my diploma.
24.

I worked at the Spar, Uitenhage, as the Store Manager for

2 years.
25.

In 2011, my father and my uncle bought an entity, OK

Grocer, in Algoa Park, appointed me as the manager to run

the business and gave me a 10% share. The agreement was
that as the business progressed and depending on my
performance, I would then buy my uncle and my father out
progressively.

10

26.

I receive a salary of R30, 000.00 per month. I wish to

state at this point in time that the business, OK Grocer, which

I am managing at present and from which I draw the above
salary as well as my 10% share, employs 60 people, whose
livelihood depends on them retaining their jobs. Most, if not all
of these people, are maintaining family and would be in dire
financial straits if this business had to close.
27.

I further wish to state that neither my father, nor my

uncle can run this business in my absence, for the following

reasons:
27.1. My father has his own businesses in Uitenhage and has
never run a business of this nature. As such, my father
would not be able to run this business as I run it and the
business may well be in trouble, if I am not able to run it
myself; and
27.2. My

uncle

lives

in

Johannesburg

and

runs

all

his

businesses in Johannesburg and so cannot run this

business on my behalf.
28.

It is therefore essential that, in the period of time that I

await any trial that I might face, for me to be at that business,

running that business as I have always run it in order to
maintain its profitability and therefore ensure that these
people that I have referred to maintain their jobs. I requested

11

my lawyer, Mr A Griebenow, to obtain statements from a

couple of employees to illustrate this position to the court.
29.

The turnover of this business, a profitable and very busy

enterprise, is between R4 and R6 million per month and

therefore, quite obviously, it cannot be run by any Tom, Dick
and Harry. I have become accustomed to running this
business since I have been running it now for 4 years and no
one in that business at present, can run it in my place. As we
speak, there are problems at the business with everyone
panicking, because no one knows what to do and as a result, I
am required to write notes to my family and try and run the
business from prison, which is impossible.
30.

In addition, my assistant manageress, Chanelle Coutts,

who worked just under me has been forced by circumstance

to take leave as a result of:
30.1. Detailed and strenuous questioning by the Police; and
30.2. Threats both telephonically and by members of the public
coming into my business and threatening her with
violence (the above information regarding Chanelle was
given to my parents by employees who are employed at
the OK Grocer).
31.

As a result of these appalling threats by members of the

public and the questioning by the police, she has had a

12

breakdown and can no longer be of any assistance to me. This

has placed the business in an even more precarious position.
32.

Apart from the house and the furniture that I have

referred to above, I have the following assets:

32.1. The business that I have referred to above;
32.2. Infinity Pub and Grub in Dyke Road, Algoa Park,
which is a going concern and which is valued at
approximately R750, 000.00 (my father in law assisted
me in building the business up to its present successful
stage);
The business pays me an amount of R20, 000.00 per
month, which is immediately set off against the loan
account which I used to build up the business and
purchase stock;
32.3. In addition, I have a business called Hi-Net Lounge in
Cotsworld Lane, Cotsworld Shopping Centre. This is
an Internet caf which generates approximately R10,
000.00 per month for me;
32.4. I have also recently purchased a house in Lovemore
Estate for R2.2million and the bond for the house has
already been approved I will be responsible for the
monthly payments on that house;

13

32.5. I am the owner of a Golf STI motor vehicle 2015

model, valued at R290, 000.00. I bought the vehicle on
HP and whilst I have made a number of payments on it,
there is still an amount of approximately R200, 000.00
payable.
33.

Quite obviously, from what I have stated above, should I

remain in prison indefinitely there is every chance that I will

lose each and every one of these assets. If I were outside the
prison walls, I would be able to continue generating an income,
employing 60 + people and be able to pay off all these debts,
pending any trial that I may face in the future.
FAMILY TIES
34.

Both my parents live at 108 Winterhoek Drive, Vanes

Estate in Uitenhage and have lived there for a considerable

period of time. They have lived in this house for the past 11
years, but have lived in Uitenhage for the past 30 years.
35.

Both my parents have a number of business interests in

Uitenhage and have had these interests for a substantial

period of time.
36.
wit:

I am the only son of my parents, but I have two sisters, to

14

36.1. Chloe, who is a 26 years old single lady, but who is

employed as a teacher at Riebeeck College, the same
school at which Jayde taught;
36.2. Kalleope, a 22 year old student at Wits University
studying occupational therapy who is in her first year.
37.

Both my sisters still stay with my parents. Chloe on a

permanent basis and

Kalleope when she is at home.
38.

I respectfully therefore submit that all of the above

factors support my submissions that I have no intention to

leave this country and that I have every intention of standing
my trial. I believe in my innocence and I believe that I have
enough grounds to convince a Court on trial that I am
innocent.
39.

I am aware of the fact that the State will allege that it has

a strong case, but I have been informed by my legal

representatives that the State always allege that they have a
strong case. It has been pointed out to me that in the Oscar
Pistorious case, the State also alleged that it had a strong
case, yet bail was granted. The same position of course
existed in the Dewani matter, in particular, when one bears
in mind that Dewani was in fact a citizen of the United
Kingdom.

15

40.

I promise this Honourable Court that I will stand trial and

that I have no intention of abandoning my family and my

businesses.
AD THE LAW

41.

All the representations that follow are on the advices of

my legal representatives.
42.

Accused persons, I am informed, are entitled to bring bail

applications as soon as is reasonably possible after their

arrest and are, by their very nature, urgent. I am informed
that the Constitution provides for freedom of movement and
freedom of persons and therefore, incarceration must only
continue if it is necessary in the interest of justice that it
continues.
Twayie v Minister of Justice 1981 (2) SA 101 (O)
43.

I am informed that in the matter of S v Letaoana 1997

(11) BCLR 1581 (W) at 159 (E), Marcus AJ pointed out that
in any further development of the principles of bail,
every Judge is obliged to take full account of the
Constitution in the light of the requirements of s39(2)
of the Constitution, i.e., that a Court must promote the
spirit, purport an object of the Constitution.

16

This approach was confirmed in the matter of S v Porthen

and Others 2004 (2) SACR 242(C) at [17]. (S v Bennett
2000 (1) SACR 406 (W) at 408e-g)
44.

I concede that this is a schedule 6 Bail Application

(s60(11)(a) of the CPA).

45.

I further accept that at this point in time, bearing in mind

that the State alleges that this was a premeditated offence,

where the minimum sentencing provisions provide for a
sentence of life imprisonment.
46.

In order to determine whether or not I should be granted

bail, I am informed that this Honourable Court must, in

particular, adjudicate the issue on the provisions of s60 (4)
(a-e) r/w 60(5), 60(6), 60(7), 60(8a) and 60(9) of the
CPA.
47.

As far as s60(4)(a) is concerned, it reads:

(a) where there is the likelihood that the Accused, if

he or she were released on bail, will endanger the
safety of the public or any particular person or will
commit a Schedule 1 offence; ..... (our emphasis)
48.

This section must be read with s60(5) which sets out 8

factors that the Court may consider:

48.1. (a) the degree of violence towards others implicit in the
charge against the Accused. Quite obviously on the

17

States version, I was the author of the violence against

Jayde;
48.2. (b) any threat of violence which the Accused may have
made to any person. I have never made any threat of
violence against any person (save for the allegations of
the State that I committed violence towards Jayde);
48.3. (c) any resentment the Accused is alleged to harbour
against any person. There is no evidence that I harbour
any resentment against any person and I wish to state
emphatically that I am a person who gets on with
everybody and am affable and friendly;
48.4. (d) any disposition to violence on the part of the Accused,
as is evident from his / her past conduct. I have no
disposition to violence and there has never been any
violence alleged against me in the past;
48.5. (e) any disposition of the Accused to commit offences
referred to in Schedule 1 as is evidence from his / or past
conduct. I have no previous convictions, nor have I ever
before been arrested for any offence let alone one
involving violence;
48.6. (f) the prevalence of a particular type of offence. This is
not relevant to me or to this offence, with respect;

18

48.7. (g) any evidence that the Accused previously committed

an offence referred to in Schedule 1 release on bail. I
have never previously been charged with any offence and
therefore there is no evidence that I have ever committed
any offence, prior to the ones that the State now allege I
have committed.
AD PARA 4(b)
49.

(b)

Where

there

is

the

likelihood

that

the

Accused, if he or she were released on bail, will

attempt to evade his / her trial; ...... (our emphasis)
50.

This section must be r/w s60(6) which in itself sets out

10 factors which a Court can look at in determining whether

this ground has been established by the evidence presented
by the State.
51.

(a) The emotional, family, committee occupational ties of

the Accused to the place at which he or she is to be tried.

From the contents of this affidavit, it should be clear that my
entire family are not only in South Africa, but are in the Port
Elizabeth / Uitenhage area. We are a very close family as can
be seen by the affidavits in support of my bail application and
I have no intention whatsoever of ever being apart from my
family;

19

51.1. (b) the assets held by the Accused and where such assets
are situated. The assets that I hold are set out in this
Affidavit above and as this Honourable Court can see, all
those assets are situate within the Magisterial District of
Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage and are ample in both
number

and

value.

would

be

quite

honestly

exceptionally silly to abandon all these assets which are

so valuable to me;
51.2. (c) the means and travel documents held by the Accused,
which may enable him or her to leave the country. The
only passport I have is in the possession of my attorney,
Mr Griebenow and was given to him some time back. In
addition, I have no intention of leaving the country and
have no place to go to outside of South Africa in any
event;
51.3. (d) the extent, if any, to which the Accused can afford to
forfeit the amount of bail which may be set. I am
prepared to pay whatever amount of money, within my
means, which this Honourable Court deems to be
reasonable and, like any other South African in the
financial situation that most of the South Africans are, I
would certainly not be able to afford forfeiting that
amount of money;

20

51.4. (e) the question whether the extradition of the Accused

could readily be affected should he / she flee across the
borders of the Republic in an attempt to evade his / her
trial.... I am led to believe that South Africa, being much
more part of the global situation now then it was many
years

ago,

has

extradition

countries in the world.

agreements

with

most

In addition, I am also informed

that South Africa is not only a member of Interpol, but

that its previous Police Commissioner (Selebi) was the
Chairman of Interpol. Interpol and the South African
Police work extremely well together and Interpol, with
offices all over the world, would easily be able to trace
me and return me to South Africa if so required;
51.5. (f) the nature and gravity of the charge on which the
Accused is to be tried. I appreciate that the nature and
the gravity of the charge is a very serious one and that it
has caused a lot of emotion in the public. It does however
appal me that my alleged role in the murder of Jayde, has
been treated by the public in general as the most grave
of grave offences, whereas the brutal and exceptionally
violent murder on Uitenhage Farmer, Allan Clark, does
not appear to have attracted the same indignation which

21

to me, suggests a substantial amount of hypocrisy on the

part of certain elements by the community;
51.6. (g) the strength of the case against the Accused and the
incentive that he or she may in consequence have to
attempt to evade his / her trial. I am informed that the
State, as is usual, will allege that they have a strong case
against me, that if I am convicted, I will face a sentence
of life imprisonment and as a result of that, I may
attempt to evade my trial. At this point in time, neither I
nor my legal representatives have seen the police docket,
so it is exceptionally difficult for me to comment on the
strength of the case against me, but I have been
informed more or less that the following is alleged as far
as the case against me is concerned:
51.6.1.

That a bouncer who worked for me at the

Infinity Club alleges that I recruited him and paid

him a sum of money to find someone to murder
Jayde;
51.6.2.

That this bouncer then recruited the person

who has now been arrested as Accused 3 who in

turn then kidnapped and / or murdered Jayde
allegedly at my request;

22

51.6.3.

That having arrested the bouncer (Accused 2)

the State have now apparently made him a s204

witness (the cautionary rule of an accomplice
witness and the cautionary rule relating to single
witnesses would, I am informed, apply were he to
testify), the State then apparently used him to
entrap me.
52.

Because I do not know exactly what the basis of the

charges is against me and I am not aware how strong the

States evidence is against me, I have been advised by my
legal representatives not to say too much until we have seen
the police docket and are thereby able to comment thereon. I
am however prepared to state the following:
52.1. I am innocent of this offence and will plead not guilty at
my trial;
52.2. The bouncer (Accused 2) will, if he testifies against me,
face strong and taxing cross-examination by my legal
representatives and the Court would have to evaluate his
evidence against the two cautionary rules that I have
referred to above;
52.3. That the trap which was carried out against me may
well fall foul of the provisions of s252A of the CPA
51/1997 and that there is a possibility, at least, that a

23

Court of Law may exclude that evidence on the basis of it

being improperly, unfairly or injudiciously obtained;
52.4. I am further informed that, on the States case, there is
no evidence of any direct contact between myself and
the apparent killer of Jayde (Accused 3) nor does he
allege that he had any direct contact with me.
53.

In addition, I wish to state that no motive has been raised

as to why I would have my beloved wife, Jayde, killed and I

wish to state the following:
53.1. Jayde and I were in love and apart from the odd marital
argument, which all couples have, we got on very well;
53.2. The utter nonsense that the Press has peddled that there
was an insurance policy somewhere along the line from
which I would benefit is exactly that, UTTER NONSENSE;
53.3. Prior to the death of Jayde, I had bought a house in
Lovemore Park for R2.2 million where she and I would be
living;
53.4. I stood to gain absolutely nothing by Jaydes death since
we were married out of community of property without
accrual. There was no policy or any other amount of
money or property of which I am aware which would
come to me on her passing;

24

53.5. In any event, I am fully aware of the maxim de

bloedige hand erft niet;
53.6. It is puzzling to me that, if the States case against me
was as strong as they claim it was, why it would have
become necessary for the Police to use the s204 witness
(Accused 2) to entrap me. If the case against me was so
strong, why did they not arrest me prior to entrapping
me?;
53.7. As such, I disagree with the State that they have as
strong a case against me as they allege and respectfully
submit that only a High Court Judge (should the matter
be tried in the High Court) having heard all the evidence
and having heard cross-examination thereon, would
determine my guilt or innocence.

As such, the States

claim that the case against me is strong is purely

subjective and, I am informed, not untypical of the State.
54.

I wish to further add that the State also alleged that they

had a deadly case against:

54.1. Fred van der Vyver (he was granted bail and later
acquitted);
54.2. Shren Dewani (he was granted bail and thereafter
acquitted ito s174);

25

54.3. Oscar Pistorious (he was granted bail) and eventually

convicted of culpable homicide and given an effective
sentence of 10months imprisonment.
55.

I am informed by my legal representatives that the

strength of a State case is only one of many factors that a bail

Court can take into consideration and that even where the
Court finds that there is a strong case against an Accused, that
in itself is not enough to trump an Accused persons right to be
presumed innocent and a South African citizens right to
freedom of movement.

56.

(h) the nature and gravity of the punishment which is

likely to be imposed, should the Accused be convicted of the

charges against him / her. I have dealt with this largely under
para (g) supra and wish to emphasize that whether the
punishment was 5 years or life imprisonment, imprisonment
remains a horrible situation for anyone. It is not the length of
imprisonment

that

would

incentivize

in

my

respectful

submission, a person to evade his trial, but whether or not that

person was innocent or guilty.
56.1. (i) the binding effect and enforceability of bail conditions
which may be imposed and the ease with which such
conditions could be breached. I am prepared to endure

26

any bail conditions which this Honourable Court deems

reasonable, including:
56.1.1. Giving up all my travel documents pending the
finalisation of this matter;
56.1.2.

Being restricted to house arrest, save for the

times that I will be operating in my businesses

and the times that I will go to church;
56.1.3.

Reporting to the Algoa Park Police Station

twice a day at any of the times which this

Honourable Court deems reasonable, since my
business, OK Grocers, is very close to the Algoa
Park Police Station;
56.1.4.

To give my cell number to the Investigating

Officer, to having this cell phone on my person at

all times, to take any call at any time that the
Investigating Officer may make towards me and
to

make

my

cell

phone

available

to

the

Investigating Officer for it to be mapped should

they be of any reasonable belief that I have
breached my bail conditions;
56.1.5.

To have a bracelet attached to my ankle, if

that is possible;
56.1.6.

To bind myself to the Magisterial districts of

Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage and only to leave

27

the

Magisterial

districts

with

the

written

permission of the Investigating Officer;

56.1.7.

That I be placed under supervision of a

correctional official or a probation officer ito s62(f)

of the CPA pending the outcome of any trial that I
may face.
56.1.8.

Any other bail condition which this Honourable

Court deems reasonable.

SECTION 60(4)(c)

57.

Where there is the likelihood that the Accused, if

he or she were released on bail, will attempt to

influence or intimidate witnesses or to conceal or
destroy evidence; ......

This section is to be read with

s60(7) of the CPA.

(a) the fact that the Accused is familiar with the identity of
witnesses and with the evidence which they may bring against
him or her; ...
The only witness that I am aware of is erstwhile Accused 2 who
has already apparently made a statement to the Police and
who has already agreed to testify against me.
58.

I do not know where this Accused person is at present

and I am led to believe that he will be held in a witness

protection programme. In any event, I have no intention

28

whatsoever in even speaking to this witness again, let alone

intimidating him.
In any event on Tuesday, 12 May 2015, I phoned my mother to
get hold of my lawyer, Mr A Griebenow, and inform him that I
wanted to see him urgently. I told him that I had been
approached by an unknown person. This person told me that
the prosecutor, magistrate and police already had a meeting
and that I was not going to be granted bail. I was told by this
person that the only way out of the case was if my co-accused
who had turned state witness was killed. This person told me
that on payment of R45 000.00 that could be organised. I was
also told that exhibits like cell phones and dockets could
disappear. This information was relayed to the police for further
attention. From this it should be clear that I have no intention to
interfere with state witnesses and/or to conceal or destroy
evidence.

59.

(b)

whether

the

witnesses

have

already

made

statements and agreed to testify;... This witness has already

made a statement I am informed and already agreed to testify.
60.

(d) the relationship of the Accused with the various

witnesses and the extent to which they could be influenced or

29

intimidated.... I have already answered this under paras (a)

(c) above.
61.

(e)

how

effective

and

enforceable

bail

conditions

prohibiting communication between the Accused and witnesses

are likely to be. I have already answered this supra.
62.

(f) whether the Accused has access to evidentiary

material which is to be presented at his / her trial... I have no

access to an evidentiary material (of which I am aware) which
may or may not be presented at trial. There has never been an
allegation by the police or any of the investigating officers that
I am withholding any evidentiary material.
63.

(g) the ease with which evidentiary material could be

concealed or destroyed... I have already answered this supra.

SECTION 60(4)(d)

64.

(d) where there is the likelihood that the Accused,

if he or she were released on bail, will undermine or

jeopardise the objectives or the proper functioning of
the Criminal Justice System, including the bail system.
This section should be r/w s60 (8)(a) of the CPA.
65.

Herein the following must be considered: (a) the fact

that the Accused, knowing it to be false, supplied false

information at the time of his / her arrest or during bail

30

proceedings... I have never supplied false information to the

police after my arrest and there is no false information in this
affidavit and the affidavit supporting my application for bail,
nor has any allegation been made by the police that I have
supplied false information. I respectfully submit that denying
that I was involved in the offence does not amount to false
information.
66.

(b) whether the Accused is in custody on another charge

or whether the Accused is on parole... I am not in custody on

another charge and have never been in custody on any charge
and also obviously I have never been on parole.
67.

(c) any previous failure on the part of the Accused to

comply with bail conditions or indication that he / she will not

comply with any bail conditions... There is no such evidence
before this Honourable Court and there is no basis for a finding
that I may not comply with bail conditions, save for pure
speculation.
SECTION 60(4)(e)

68.

This

section

reads:

(e)

where

in

exceptional

circumstances there is the likelihood that the release of

the Accused will disturb the public order or undermine
the public peace or security....

31

69.

This section must be r/w subsection 8A of the CPA and

includes:
(a) Whether the nature of the offence or the circumstances
under which the offence was committed, is likely to induce a
sense of shock or outrage in the community where the offence
was committed... Quite obviously this offence has induced a
sense of shock and outrage in the community, but I am
informed by my legal representatives that the Courts do not
cater to unreasonable elements of a community and cannot
allow the community or society to undermine the rights that I
have and that I have referred to above.
70.

I wish to repeat that each and every day in this Country

very serious murders, much more serious than this one,

including multiple murder, large drug induced hit murders,
serious and violent rape charges and outrageous murders such
as xenophobic murders are committed, yet people are still
released on bail.
71.

I wish to also state that in the Dewani matter, the Van der

Vyver matter and the Pistorious matter referred to above, there

was, initially a massive sense of shock and all outpourings of
rage in various sections of the community and yet all three of
these gentleman were granted bail, two were eventually

32

acquitted and one was convicted of a much less serious

offence.
72.

(b) Whether the shock or outrage of the community

might lead to public disorder if the Accused is released. There

is no evidence that my release on bail would lead to public
disorder, but in any event, I am informed by my legal
representatives that it would be most unprofessional to allow
malicious and / or violent members of the community to hold
this Honourable Court to ransom and to keep me in custody,
because there is a possibility that a small element of
overcharged persons might decide to hurt me. In any event, I
am more likely to be hurt in prison, with respect, than if I were
at my home and within my own community.
73.

(c) whether the safety of the Accused might be

jeopardised by his / her release. I have addressed this in paras

(a) (b) above.
74.

(d) whether the sense of peace and security among

members of the public will be undermined or jeopardised by

the release of the Accused. I have my doubts whether the
sense of peace and security among members of the public
will be jeopardised by my release.

33

75.

(d) whether the sense of peace and security among

members of the public will be undermined or jeopardised by

the release of the Accused. I have addressed this supra.
76.

(e) whether the release of the Accused will undermine or

jeopardise the public confidence of the Criminal Justice

System.... As I have indicated supra, Accused persons
convicted of far more brutal and violent offences than I have
been charged with have been released on bail without
undermining / jeopardising public confidence in the Criminal
Justice System. In any event, I am informed by my legal
representatives that it would be unconstitutional for a Court to
hold a person in custody bearing in mind the presumption of
innocence and the right to freedom of movement, simply on
the basis that the public might lose confidence in the justice
system, since this would be a matter of punishment before
conviction.
77.

In addition to what I have stated above, I wish to indicate

to this Court that the comments of Slomowitz AJ in the matter

of S v Schietekat 1999 (1) SACR 100 (C) wherein the
Learned Judge dealt with the factors referred to in s60(8)(A)
and stated:
...are no more than an expression in statutory form of
what amounts to lynch law.

It is true to say that it is

34

the duty of Courts of Law to ensure the Maintenance of

Law, order and justice and so prevent the greatest of all
evils, a Criminal Justice System so weak and vacillating
that people feel the need to avoid the Courts and take
the law into their own hands. Despite this, Courts have
a greater obligation to the society at large. They must
jealously guard the rule of law. That is the lesson of this
century. A Court of law must not permit the body politic
to give legislative credibility, for whatever reason, to
uninformed or ignorant public outcry, or to what the
government perceives will best assuage those feelings
of the general public which, are calculated to do no
more than to ensure that it will be returned to elected
office, whether it deserves to be or not. I wish further to
emphasize the use of the word exceptional circumstances
set out in para 60(4)(e) of the CPA.
78.

It is also however important, I am informed, for the Court

to consider my personal circumstances in conjunction with all

of the above.
79.

The legislature saw fit to ensure that the personal

circumstances and the circumstances surrounding an Accused

position must also be considered, hence the promulgation of
s60(9) of the CPA, which reads:

35

(9) in considering the question in subsection (4) the

Court shall decide the matter by weighing the interest
of justice against the right of the Accused to his / her
personal freedom and in particular, the prejudice he or
she is likely to suffer, if he or she were to be detained in
custody, taking into account, where applicable, namely
- ....
80.

The following factors are then dealt with:

80.1. (a) the period for which the Accused have already been
in custody since his / her arrest.... At this point in time of
this application, I have been in custody for 15 days.
80.2. (b) the probable period of detention until the disposal or
conclusion of the trial if the Accused is not released on
bail.... I am informed by my legal representatives that
there is very little, if any chance, that my trial will be
heard this year and every probability that my trial will
only be heard by the middle of next year. If this is indeed
so, I will have been in custody by the time that my trial
begins, for very close to a year or even longer and by
that time my businesses would have collapsed, my
vehicle would have been repossessed and I would have
been dispossessed of all my properties and for all intents
and purposes, have absolutely nothing to my name.

36

80.3. (c) the reason for any delay in the disposal or conclusion
of the trial and any fault in the fault of the Accused in
regard to such delay. I have no part whatsoever in any
delay and the decision whether or not to prosecute me
and when I must be prosecuted is completely out of my
hands and in the hands of the Eastern Cape Director of
Public Prosecutions.
80.4. (d) any financial loss which the Accused may suffer to
his / her detention. I have already referred to the
massive and substantial loss that I will suffer, were I to be
further detained, but more importantly the suffering of 60
+ of my employees who may well lose their jobs and who
therefore will not be able to support themselves and their
families. This of course is a vicious circle, because it will
mean that they will be unable to pay their bonds off, their
rent, their school fees, buy groceries to feed their families
and may well lead to these persons suffering severely
and joining the ever lengthening queue of unemployment
in a country where unemployment is already massively
high. The chances of these persons being re-employed
bearing in mind that unemployment is apparently running
between 25 and 40% in South Africa and the fact that so

37

many foreigners are working illegally in this country

would be very minimal to say the least.
80.5. any impediment to the preparation of the Accused
defence or obtaining any legal representation which may
be brought about by the detention of the accused.
Obviously, as soon as my legal representatives are in
possession of the police docket and the charge sheet if I
am to be prosecuted, means that we will have to
regularly and repeatedly consult to prepare ourselves for
the trial that would inevitably follow were I to be
prosecuted. I am informed (and I have seen this with my
own eyes) that the facilities to consult in St Albans
prisons are well neigh invisible and those that are there
are in such a parlous state that it is almost impossible to
properly consult with ones lawyers, making it very
difficult for myself then to properly brief my legal
representatives to properly prepare for trial.

Quite

obviously, if I am out on bail, I will be in a far stronger

and better position to consult properly with my legal
representatives and therefore to be able to prepare
properly for my trial.
80.6. the state of health of the Accused... I am at present in a
healthy

state,

but

bearing

in

mind

the

appalling

38

conditions that I am being held under at St Albans, I dont

know how long that would last.
AD LEGAL PRECEDENT

81.

Although I am informed by my legal representatives that

they will present to this Court case law relating to bail, I am

also informed that the Honourable Trial Magistrate who will
hear this bail application has experience in bail applications
and will be aware of the basic principles of bail and a number
of these cases.
82.

I do however wish to highlight certain of these cases:

82.1. S v Acheson 1991 (2) SA 805 (Nm): herein Mohamed J

(whom I am informed became the Chief Justice of the
South African Bench and was a highly respected juris),
made the following comments at 822A-B of his Judgment:
An Accused person cannot be kept in detention
pending

his

trial

as

form

of

anticipatory

punishment. The presumption of the law is that he

is innocent until his guilt has been established in
Court. The Court will therefore ordinarily grant bail
to an Accused person unless this is likely to
prejudice the ends of justice.

39

82.2. This passage I am informed was cited with approval by

the Apex Court of Appeal in this Country (the SCA) in the
matter of Crossberg v S [2007] SCA 93 (RSA) at [13] note
1 where the Court held:
it is so that there is a different emphasis in
respect of bail pending finalisation of a trial as
against bail pending finalisation of an appeal.

presumption of innocence operates in favour of an

Accused until his guilt has been established in
Court.
82.3. S v Peterson and Another 1992 (2) SACR 52 (C) at 55e:
Cooper J, in this matter pointed out that the purpose of
bail was to minimise interference in the lawful activities
of an Accused. It is quite clear then that pre-trial release
would allow a man accused of crime to keep the
fabric of his life in tact, to maintain employment
and family ties in the event he is acquitted or
given a suspended sentence or probation. It spares
his family the hardship and indignity of welfare
and enforced separation. It permits the Accused to
take an active part in planning his defence with his
Counsel, locating witnesses, proving his capability
of staying free in the community without getting
into trouble....

40

82.4. Mbulelo Makibi v The State (an unreported Judgment of

Smith J in the High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape,
Grahamstown, under case number CA&R332/2010) which
Judgment was delivered by the Honourable Judge on 21
December 2012: I attach for the convenience of this
Honourable Court a copy of the Judgment herein, the
contents of which speak for themselves. I wish to point
out however that this matter was a Schedule 6 offence
and wish specifically to refer this Honourable Court to
paragraphs [14] [17].
83.

I also wish to attach to my affidavit an article by

Advocate Coryl Verrier dealing with the conditions in South

African Prisons, to which I have referred supra. The contents of
this article by Advocate Verrier respectfully confirm what I have
stated above and are important, I respectfully submit, on this
Honourable Courts decision on whether or not to release me
on bail.
CONSLUSION
84.

I respectfully submit that:

84.1. I am no danger to the community since I have no

previous convictions and no record or history of any

41

violence whatsoever to the contrary, I am known as a

calm and gentle person;
84.2. There is no possibility, let alone likelihood of me not
standing my trial, bearing in mind that my entire family,
and we have a very close family, are resident and have
been resident, not only in South Africa, but in Port
Elizabeth and Uitenhage for a very lengthy period of time
I have no intention of leaving this country, the country I
love, and, quite honestly I have no place to go;
84.3. I cannot, with respect, interfere in the witnesses, since I
am led to believe that there is one witness against me
and I will never in any event have access to that witness
since he is apparently in witness protection, but in any
event, I do not know where he is and have no interest in
his whereabouts;
84.4. My further incarceration will lead to serious financial
torture for a number of employees and may well lead to
my business collapsing and all my assets being seized, in
circumstances where I have not even been tried, let
alone convicted.
85.

I wish to state that there is absolutely no motive for me

to have had Jayde killed and the State has not even revealed
a motive (for obvious reasons, since there isnt one).

42

86.

It is therefore, with respect, purely speculative of the

State to claim that they have a very strong case against me in

circumstances where my legal representatives are not in a
position to challenge that subjective and, as I am informed,
usual comment since we have no access to the docket as a
result of s6(14) of the CPA, but I am willing to state that I will
plead

not

guilty

representatives

and

will

be

am
able

confident
to

that

seriously

my

damage

legal
any

allegations by the s204 witness that I somehow was involved

in this violent crime against my wife.
DATED at PORT ELIZABETH this 13th day of MAY 2015.

________________________________________
CHRISTOPHOROS
PANAYIOTOU
Applicant

CONSTANTINOU

43

I certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he knows and

understands the contents of this affidavit which was signed and
sworn to before me at PORT ELIZABETH on this

day of

2015 and that the Regulations contained in Government Notice

R1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended, having been complied with.

__________________________
COMMISSIONER OF OATH