Panayiotou - The State - Replying Aff - May 2015

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORT ELIZABETH

PAGE - 41 -

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

REPLYING AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned

CHRISTOPHOROS CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOUdo hereby make oath and say that:

1.

I am the Applicant in this bail application. I am also the deponent to the

founding affidavit.2.

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. Legal submissions made in this affidavit are done on the advice of my legal representatives.3.

I have read the answering affidavit deposed to by LIEUTENANT RHYNHARDT SWANEPOEL and will answer thereto hereunder. Where I do not specifically deal with evidence contained in his affidavit it should not be construed as an admission but rather a denial thereof.

4.

AD PARAGRAPH 1 THEREOF:

I have no reason to dispute the evidence contained herein.

5.


I am conversant with the contents of the charge sheet. I accept that I may be arraigned in the High Court on those charges.6.


I have taken the liberty of marking the bullets under paragraph 3 that go all the way to paragraph 20 on page 11 as follows:6.1AD PARAGRAPH 3.1 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE FIRST PAGE) THEREOF:

The information herein is correct.

6.2AD PARAGRAPH 3.2 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:


6.3AD PARAGRAPH 3.3 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:


6.4AD PARAGRAPH 3.4 (THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:

I will deal with the information herein at the opportune moment. Even though I had an intermittent relationship of a sexual nature with Chanelle Coutts, I say without fear of contradiction that this did not have a negative impact on my marriage relationship with the deceased. I admit that I bought her gifts from time to time. We also went for lunches and dinners at restaurants. For the remainder I take issue with the evidence given herein.6.5AD PARAGRAPH 3.5 (THE FIFTH BULLET ON THE SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:

I refer in this regard to the supporting affidavit by my father, MR CONSTANTINOUS NICOLAU PANAYIOTOU. I however vehemently deny that my father advised me that he will disinherit me or that I run the risk of disinheritance if I continue with the relationship with Ms Coutts.6.6AD PARAGRAPH 3.6 (THE SIXTH BULLET ON THE SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:

6.6.1The information in the first sentence of this paragraph is inaccurate and I deny it.

6.6.2Even though it is correct that Ms Coutts friend accompanied her on some occasions, I dispute that there was ever any need for her to calm anything down.

6.6.3For the remainder I take issue with the information provided herein.

6.6.4In any event, I submit this alleged information as irrelevant to my bail application.

6.7AD PARAGRAPH 3.7 (THE SEVENTH BULLET ON THE SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:

I admit the contents hereof.

6.8AD PARAGRAPH 3.8 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE THIRD PAGE) THEREOF:

6.8.1I deny the contents herein.

6.8.2In amplification of the aforesaid denial, it came to my knowledge that one of the alleged hit men known only by the name of Trompies was allegedly approached by the police on the supposition that Accused 1 would have been able to identify him as one of the hit men he approached. Trompies denied all allegations by Accused 1 that he (Trompie) was approached as a potential hit man in this case.

6.8.3I deny that I gave the explanation referred to in this paragraph. In fact, as may be gleaned from my founding affidavit, I was married to the deceased out of community of property and bought the house for us to have a comfortable dwelling to spend our future together.6.9AD PARAGRAPH 3.9 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE THIRD PAGE) THEREOF:

6.9.1It is not correct that my father was not in favour of us purchasing a house in Port Elizabeth. My father merely requested us to also look at properties in Uitenhage. Like any father he urged us to stay in close proximity with them. When we eventually bought a property, he was delighted and even offered to assist us in making a payment. Furthermore, the deceaseds parents even offered to assist us with an advanced payment of R250 000.00.

6.9.2For the remainder I deny the contents of this paragraph.6.10AD PARAGRAPH 3.10 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE THIRD PAGE) THEREOF:

6.10.1The information in the first two sentences is an oxymoron. The loan was in fact approved in the amount of R151 000.00.

6.10.2I admit that the monies were transferred to my account and that I paid the transfer duties as alleged.6.11AD PARAGRAPH 3.11 (THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE THIRD PAGE) THEREOF:

I have no knowledge of the contents herein.

6.12AD PARAGRAPH 3.12 (THE FITH BULLET ON THE THIRD PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny the contents hereof.

6.13AD PARAGRAPH 3.13 (THE SIXTH BULLET ON THE THIRD PAGE) THEREOF:

I have no knowledge of the contents of the first two sentences of this paragraph. I also deny the contents of the last sentence.6.14AD PARAGRAPH 3.14 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I again have no knowledge of the contents herein.6.15AD PARAGRAPH 3.15 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny each and every allegation made in this paragraph.6.16AD PARAGRAPH 3.16 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

6.16.1I deny the contents of this paragraph.

6.16.2More specifically, I vehemently deny that I furnished any information to Accused 1. The assumption which is made in the succeeding sentences of this paragraph are therefore baseless. I, in any event, deny the remainder of this paragraph.6.17AD PARAGRAPH 3.17 (THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny the contents of this paragraph.6.18AD PARAGRAPH 3.18 (THE FITH BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I similarly deny the contents hereof.

6.19AD PARAGRAPH 3.19 (THE SIXTH BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I do not have knowledge of the contents hereof.

6.20AD PARAGRAPH 3.20 (THE SEVENTH BULLET ON THE FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I likewise have no knowledge of the contents hereof.6.21AD PARAGRAPH 3.21 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE FIFTH PAGE) THEREOF:

6.21.1I deny that the contact I had with Accused 1 (and upon which I will elaborate hereunder) had a nefarious purpose.

6.21.2On 21 April 2015 it became known to me and members of my family that monies were withdrawn from an ATM in KwaNobuhle and later Kwazakhele with Jades bank card. Her bank card (cheque account) was apparently withheld by the ATM after insertion of an incorrect pin number. However further withdrawals were later made with her credit card at an ATM in the Njoli area, near Kwazakhele. As no further withdrawls were made after this we thought that her daily limit for withdrawals might have been reached. That evening I and members of my family and police were looking for Jades cell phone in the Linton Grange area. C-Track indicated that they picked up a signal from her phone in an certain area and we went to search for the phone in the area from where they were picking up the signal. We did not find the phone and left that area round about 23h00. I then together with members of my family went to Njoli Square and arranged for Accused 1 who knows the area to assist us in patrolling the area well where the ATM is located to see whether any person comes to withdraw money after 00h00, hoping that we could apprehend whoever had Jades credit card in the act. We thought that the person making the withdrawals would attempt a further withdrawal as it was a new day.

6.21.3For the remainder, and insofar as the deponent refers to cellular mapping I am advised that this issue will be fully dealt with during the trial. It in any event has no material connection to the charge of murder.

6.22AD PARAGRAPH 3.22 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE FITH PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny any knowledge of the contents of this paragraph.

6.23AD PARAGRAPH 3.23 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE FITH PAGE) THEREOF:

I have no knowledge of the information herein and specifically deny contents of the second sentence herein.6.24AD PARAGRAPH 3.24 (THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE FITH PAGE) THEREOF:

Accused 1 was arrested on 27 (and not 26) April 2015. I became aware of Accused 1s arrest on 28 April 2015.6.25AD PARAGRAPH 3.25 (THE FITH BULLET ON THE FITH PAGE) THEREOF:

I obviously do not have knowledge of the contents of this paragraph in that it refers to dealings between Accused 1 and members of the SAPS. I am told and find it very strange that if Accused 1 was so co-operative why the police initially took Accused 1 and detained him some 200kms away at a place where his family and friends could not trace him and where he would have no access to a lawyer.6.26AD PARAGRAPH 3.26 (THE LAST BULLET ON THE FITH PAGE) THEREOF:

Whilst I concede that Accused 1 and I had telephonic contact from time to time, I deny the gist of this paragraph. I deny in particular that any of these electronic communications or telephone calls or other contact between myself and Accused 1 were in any way connected to the alleged murder or robbery.

6.27AD PARAGRAPH 3.27 (THE FIRST BULLET ON PAGES SIX TO ELEVEN) THEREOF:

6.27.1The contents of this paragraph is a transcribed version (or so I assume) of the meeting between Accused 1 and I.

6.27.2I am advised that the admissibility of the voice and video recordings will form the subject matter of a debate during any subsequent trial challenging the admissibility thereof.

6.27.3On that supposition I am advised not to deal with the specific allegations provided in this paragraph.

6.27.4These allegations appear to be the centrepiece of the States case against me. If a trial court disallows evidence it is more than likely that an acquittal will follow.6.28AD PARAGRAPH 3.28 (THE BULLETS ON PAGES ELEVEN) THEREOF:

6.28.1Mr Leon Eksteen, a member of the SAPS and a very close friend of the family played a pivotal role in the prelude to the entrapment to which the deponent refers in the preceding paragraph.

6.28.2It is significant that the deponent does not mention that I went to see Mr Eksteen earlier on that day at the offices of Organized Crime. It was about 14h00. Mr Eksteen was told about the arrest of Accused 1. He falsely denied any knowledge thereof and indicated to me that if Accused 1 had been arrested he would have known. I informed Eksteen about the calls from Accused 1 to me. He urged me to speak to Accused 1, meet with him and to establish what Accused 1 wanted. In doing so he was acting as a double agent and deceitfully.

6.28.3The evidence of Eksteen will be the subject matter of incisive and protracted cross-examination during the trial relating to his role in my entrapment.

6.28.4For the remainder, I take issue with the information herein.7.

The State has again failed to properly number the succeeding paragraphs in the affidavit of Lieutenant Swanepoel and I therefore took the liberty to number the paragraphs where the deponent deals with various subsections of section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). I will therefore now proceed to deal with the evidence given in those paragraphs.

8.

8.1AD PARAGRAPH 4.1 SECTION 60(4)(a) OF THE CPA:

I have already dealt with this provision in my founding affidavit and merely repeat what I had said there.


I refer to the contents of my founding affidavit.

8.3AD PARAGRAPH 4.3 SECTION 60(4)(b) OF THE CPA:

I refer to the issues which I give hereunder in reply to the allegations of Swanepoel.


I do not have property registered in my name in Cyprus. My father inherited a three bedroomed house in Paphos, Cyprus. This property is permanently occupied by people who lease it from my father. This is the only property my father has in Cyprus. I have last been to Cyprus in 2009, some six years ago.8.5AD PARAGRAPH 4.5 SECTION 60(6)(b) OF THE CPA:

I have shown conclusively (which undisputed) which property I own. I have also shown that I derive a substantial income from various businesses. 8.6AD PARAGRAPH 4.6 SECTION 60(6)(f) OF THE CPA:

I have already shown in my founding affidavit that, insofar as it may be applicable, other individuals had been granted bail in matters where the charges are of the same seriousness and even worse.

8.7AD PARAGRAPH 4.7 SECTION 60(6)(g) OF THE CPA:

8.7.1I do not wish to regurgitate what I had already stated in my founding affidavit. Suffice it to say that the States opinion that it has a strong case against me is entirely predicated upon the subjective opinion of a police officer.

8.7.2I want to state emphatically that I do not agree that the States case against me is as strong as the deponent attempts to convey.

8.7.3It is my honest belief that the State does not have a strong case against me and I unequivocally state that I will stand trial in order to vindicate my innocence.

8.8AD PARAGRAPH 4.8 SECTION 60(6)(h) OF THE CPA:

I have already dealt with this issue in my founding affidavit. The speculative opinion of the Lieutenant Swanepoel should not sway this court not to grant me bail.8.9AD PARAGRAPH 4.9 SECTION 60(6)(i) OF THE CPA:

8.9.1It should now be common cause that I handed my passport to my attorney of record. He unconditionally offered it to the investigating officer. I have already shown that I do not own property in Cyprus.

8.9.2Insofar as the deponent asserts that there is no bi-lateral extradition treaty between South Africa and Cyprus, this evidence is not correct. Cyprus is part of the European Union (EU) which makes extradition not only possible but also that it may be implemented without delay.

8.9.3The reference to the matter of Mr George Louka is facetious, to say the least. It is irrelevant insofar as my bail application is concerned.

8.10AD PARAGRAPH 4.10 SECTION 60(4)(c) OF THE CPA:

The State has not as yet provided me with a list of witnesses.


8.11.1I stand by the comments in my founding affidavit.

8.11.2The unsubstantiated evidence given by the deponent that I had allegedly shown my ability(sic) to interfere with witnesses and destroy evidence is baseless. The witness has not adduced a jot or tittle of information to support this contention.

8.12AD PARAGRAPH 4.12 SECTION 60(7)(c) OF THE CPA:

I take note that the investigation will be completed within the next three (3) months. For this reason I should not be incarcerated pending finalization of the investigation. It is trite that detention for the purposes of further investigation is frowned upon by our Courts.8.13AD PARAGRAPH 4.13 SECTION 60(7)(d) OF THE CPA:

The information herein is non-sensical. His opportunistic remark that Ms Coutts will loose her employment if she testifies against me is ludicrous. I therefore reject this baseless and frankly facetious comment. 8.14AD PARAGRAPH 4.14 SECTION 60(7)(e) OF THE CPA:

The deponent obviously misread the provisions of this subsection. It relates to communication between an accused person and victims, and not witnesses.8.15AD PARAGRAPH 4.15 SECTION 60(4)(e) OF THE CPA:

I will deal with the provisions of section 60(8) hereunder.

8.16AD PARAGRAPH 4.16 AND 14.17 SECTION 60(8)(A)(a) AND SECTION 60(8)(A)(e) OF THE CPA:

8.16.1It is a notorious fact that the press thrives on cases of this nature and often make unsubstantiated allegations which spur the public, to a frenzy. Quite obviously, portions of the community are outraged, but that is simply not enough. The fact that it has been covered by the media is of absolutely no consequence insofar as to whether I am entitled to bail.

8.16.2I am advised that counsel representing me will refer to various authorities dealing with this issue.

9.

I will now turn to deal with the evidence of the deponent insofar as he refers to my founding affidavit.10.

AD PARAGRAPHS 6 13 (PAGE 15) THEREOF:

10.1The comments of Swanepoel herein are contradicted by the Inspectorate Judges report from 2009 to date. In addition, the photographs attached to Mr Griebenows initial affidavit speak for themselves. 10.2It is highly unlikely that a prison officer in any event will concede that the conditions in his prison are poor. It is however not only trite that conditions are poor, but it is a notorious fact. I refer this Honourable Court to S v Jacobs 2011 (1) SACR 490 (ECP) at 495b [ii] 495h [ix].11. AD PARAGRAPHS 25 29 (PAGE 16) THEREOF:

11.1The deponents remark that I am nothing more than a store manager at the OK Grocer is unfounded and frankly demeaning.11.2The contents of these paragraphs are tantamount to unadulterated speculation and a desperate attempt by the State to undermine the fact that I am a relatively wealthy businessman who runs a number of successful businesses.11.3What the deponent seems to overlook is that all families, contribute towards a successful business. The management of OK Grocer is in my and only my hands. 12.

AD PARAGRAPH 38, 51.6 AND 54 (PAGE 16) THEREOF:

12.1I am advised not to get involved in the speculative comments by the deponent in these paragraphs.12.2The deponents comments concerning Accused 3 being out on bail because the State alleges that the case against that Accused was not strong is, to say the least, speculative. The position of Accused 3 is of no consequence in my bail application. This is a transparent attempt to mislead this Honourable Court.13.

AD PARAGRAPH 51.6.3 (PAGE 16) THEREOF:

I am advised that whatever the conditions whereunder Accused 1 may testify against me is a matter of legal argument. I am advised that whatever his status, certain evidentiary cautionary rules will be applicable to him.14.

AD PARAGRAPH 53 (PAGE 17) THEREOF:

14.1The deponents assertion that I was in financial difficulty is entirely incorrect and has no basis. Frankly it is misleading.14.2I attach hereto marked Annexure CP1 a true copy of my Statement of Assets and Liabilities as at 28 February 2015 prepared by Ms Wilna van den Berg, a Chartered Accountant who had already deposed to a confirmatory affidavit, Annexure A5 to my founding affidavit.14.3It may be gleaned from Annexure CP1 that my nett assets are worth R3 154 584.00. There is therefore no cogency in the unsubstantiated evidence given by the deponent and it is a mark of desperation on the part of the State. 15.

AD PARAGRAPH 53.6 (PAGE 17) THEREOF:

The deponent conveniently overlooks the fact that I have not been given access to the police docket. The comments in this paragraph are, to say the least, opportunistic. I knew when Accused 1 was arrested. It was in fact recorded on the close circuit television footage in the Infinity Club where he was employed. I in fact downloaded the video clip evidencing his arrest and informed Leon Eksteen thereanent. 16.

AD PARAGRAPH 56.1.4 (PAGE 17) THEREOF:

The deponent has failed dismally to put forward any cogent evidence to demonstrate my so-called deceitfulness when it comes to cellular phones. I therefore reject the these untested comments.17.


I merely divulged this information in order to demonstrate my willingness to assist the State in its investigation of this case. I hoped (and I still hope) that the police will be able to distil evidence which will eventually lead to my acquittal. That was the only reason why I disclosed the information. I did not thereby attempt to insult the Court or the Judiciary and to allege so is demeaning and a sign of desperation on the part of the State. 18.


I have already dealt with this issue elsewhere in this affidavit and re-affirm my denial thereof.19.


I deny that I furnished false information or withheld vital information prior to my arrest. 20.


20.1The two matters were never postponed at the instance of the defence. In the Leunberg matter, the State has led the evidence of a number of witnesses over a lengthy period of time and the matter had to be postponed simply because court time ran out. 20.2In any event, trial dates in the High Court are now allocated in the year 2016. I am told that there are a number of cases on the district court roll awaiting allocation of trial dates in the High Court. This fact is easily determinable and I find it astonishing that the deponent could not establish this fact from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, moreso, the present prosecutor is attached to that office and has ready and easy access to this information. 21.


21.1I am advised that the proposition put forward by the deponent is untenable. He cannot be serious in his assertion that consultation with me and all my witnesses should take place in the holding cells at the High Court. It will not only be extremely difficult to do so but is not at all feasible. 21.2What is however instructive is that the deponent, in effect, hereby concedes that the conditions at the St Albans Prison are not conducive, to say the least, of proper preparation. 22.

AD PARAGRAPH 7 (PAGE 18) OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY MR ALWYN GRIEBENOW:

What the deponent seems to overlook, according to the advice given me, is that the audio and video recordings are the centrepiece of the States evidence against me. The Court hearing the bail application may have to consider the cogency and admissibility of those allegations in order to determine whether the State has a strong case against me or not. Irrespective thereof, the strength of the State case is but ONE (of many) factors to be considered. 23.

AD PARAGRAPH UNDER THE CAPTION GENERAL (PAGE 18):

23.1The allegations in this paragraph show the length to which the SAPS will go in order to bolster unsubstantiated media reports which caused hyperactivity in the public.23.2The mere fact that I had to extract an eulogy from the Internet to deliver at my wifes funeral does not and cannot carry the corollary and innuendo which the witness attempts to convey in this paragraph. I find it appalling and therefore reject it. I have never plagiarized since I never told anyone that it was my own work. These comments are way below the belt and frankly insulting.23.3I am not a public speaker. In order for me to be able to convey my distress and sorrow at the passing of my wife I thought it prudent to find words to convey my feelings hence my search on the Internet for an apposite eulogy. I therefore reject with contempt the innuendo which the witness wishes to carry over in this paragraph.23.4I have now, in this affidavit, disclosed my relationship with Ms Coutts. I did not do it prior to having deposed to this affidavit because, in my view, it is entirely irrelevant.

24.

I will now turn to deal with the affidavit by MR JAPIE SAMSON which was served evenly with the affidavit by Lieutenant Swanepoel.25.

I do not intend to deal with each and every allegation in the affidavit of Samson. My failure to do so should not be construed as an admission but rather a denial thereof.26.

I stand by the evidence which I have already given in my founding affidavit, supported by that of Mr Griebenow.

27.

I confirm that I was transferred to a single cell alluded to by Samson. I wish to emphasize that it measures but five (5) square metres.28.

If I am not granted bail, it will obviously entail that I will be incarcerated in solitary confinement for an extended period until my trial is finalized. This in itself is inhumane and boils down to effective punishment prior to me having been convicted. I am advised that this is not in line with the constitutional norms which are to prevail and in fact impinges upon my rights enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights embodied in the Constitution. 29.

I furthermore wish to emphasize that the somewhat general evidence given by Samson in regard to the food that we are served, is not correct. He does not eat that food. I confirm that I was only served with samp and a slice of bread. On the odd occasion it may be accompanied by a debatable piece of meat. My mother brings me food as and when she can in order for me to maintain a healthy diet. 30.

Upon the information of my incarceration being published in the Sunday Times, I was confronted by prison officials. They asked me whether I had any complaints in this regard. I was at the time afraid that I would be singled out. In order to avoid retribution I replied in the negative. I was in any event immediately transferred to a single cell.

In the following paragraphs I deal with the supplementary affidavit of Rynhardt Swanepoel.

31.Swanepoel fails to deal with the objective facts and includes gratuitous comments and incorrect and inaccurate assumptions in his affidavit.32.I have dual citizenship and am also a Cypriot citizen. I am indeed the holder of a Cypriot identity card. This fact is no secret and was disclosed to my attorney during my consultations with him. I have been advised by my attorney that this fact was regarded by him and my counsel as being irrelevant to my bail application, as the possession of a Cypriot identity card does not entitle the holder thereof to travel internationally. A Cypriot passport would be required for this purpose.33.I can confirm that I applied for a Cypriot passport approximately two

years ago. I am not now nor have I ever been in possession of a

Cypriot passport. It came as a surprise to me to learn that a Cypriot

passport had been issued to me, according to the affidavit of Swanepoel. In the light of his affidavit I caused my attorney to make enquiries with the High Commission of Cyprus in Pretoria. These enquiries revealed that a Cypriot passport had indeed been issued to me by the relevant authorities in Cyprus on 5 March 2015, where after it had been sent to the High Commission of Cyprus in Pretoria for onward transmission to me. The High Commission of Cyprus in Pretoriaconfirmed to my attorney that it had received the passport from Cyprus, but had not sent it on to me. The High Commission confirmed furtherthat my Cypriot passport was still in their possession.34.

Until the information set out in the preceding paragraph was imparted tome, I was totally unaware that a Cypriot passport had been issued tome. During my consultations with my attorney I did advise him of the

fact that I had applied for a Cypriot passport some two years ago. To

my knowledge at the time, the passport had not yet been issued to me and I therefore did not or do I at present have a Cypriot passport in my possession. This fact was deemed to be irrelevant for purposes of my bail application.35.Swanepoels comment that the timing of the obtaining of the passportmust also be questioned.is spurious and devoid of substance.The fact of the matter is I never obtained the passport, as is alleged.For the same reason Swanepoels unnecessary and irrelevant statementas to the honesty of my family is equally spurious and untrue. It is

equally defamatory. It is thus simply impossible for me to relocate to Cyprus in circumstances where I am not in possession of a Cypriot passport. I undertake not to take such passport into my possession.36.The allegation that I only have debt is massively inaccurate. This allegation is gainsaid by my financial statements, which have been annexed to this affidavit.37.I am unable to comment on the veracity of the unsubstantiated hearsayby Swanepoel regarding the availability of store managers in Port Elizabeth. Significantly Swanepoel is unable to state how many of the alleged aspirant store managers would be qualified to step in at short notice to run the business concerned. The business is unique in its nature and its operating systems. I am the only personwho is fully acquainted with the unique nature of the business and itsoperating systems. A new store manager would have to be trained andI am the only person who would be able to give him/her such training. Icannot therefore be summarily replaced as store manager without thevery real possibility of the business suffering immeasurable harm.In addition, I have a strong financial interest in the success of the store

whereas a store manager would only earn a salary.

38.My financial interest in the OK Grocers business could easily have been

established had the Investigating Officer any real interest in placing the truth before this Honourable court. The business is owned by a South African company, TNT Technologies (Pty) Ltd (registration number 2013/162786/07). There are 4000 issued shares in this company of which I hold 400, i.e. a 10% interest. I annex, marked CP 2-4 copies of the issued share certificates confirming my shareholding as aforesaid as well as the shareholding of the remaining shareholders.39.To the extent that I have not dealt with in the averments in the supplementary affidavit of Swanepoel and I have not expressly in thisaffidavit admitted such averments, they must be taken as being denied

by me.40.In the following paragraphs I deal with the affidavit of Tyrone Tiervlei.

41.I persist with what I said regarding Tiervleis approach to me, in myprior affidavit. Significantly, in his affidavit, he does not seek to deny

what is stated about him in my prior affidavit. He does not even state that he read my prior affidavit, or the relevant portion thereof. 42.

The content of Tiervleis affidavit is pure fabrication and is whollyuntrue. I deny everything that is contained in his affidavit. Frankly I have a sneaking suspicion that Tiervlei was encouraged to lie under oath.43.Tiervleis version in his affidavit is diametrically opposed to what I have

said in my prior affidavit. The only way in which this dispute can beresolved is for him to be called as a witness and for his version to be tested by cross-examination. I challenge the prosecution to call him asa witness in the bail proceedings, so that his version may be tested bycross-examination. His version is fatally improbable since:

43.1If I had called him where is proof of such a call?

43.2How could I get hold of this man whom I do not know from a bar of soap?

43.3He cannot say who he was supposed to kill who could I possibly have killed to assist me against prosecution?

43.4How crazy would it be of me to do what the State alleges then instruct my attorney to give this information to the Police so they could open another charge against me?44.In the following paragraphs I deal with the affidavit of Michelle Inggs.

45.It is correct that my father owns a house in Cyprus.

46.It is also correct that foreign visitors to Cyprus require a guarantor. Theguarantor to whom Mrs Inggs refers is my uncle Andreas Panayiotou. Heis a retired member of the Cypriot Police Force. 47.There are other members of my extended family who appear in the photographs attached to the affidavit of Mrs Inggs, all of whom reside inthe Cypriot town of Paphos. They include another uncle of mine,Andreas Savva, who is also a retired member of the Cypriot Police Force.I also have two cousins in Paphos, Savva Savva and Maria Panayiotou,both of whom are serving members of the Cypriot Police Force. All ofmy aforementioned family members are incorruptible and thesuggestion that they would harbour a fugitive from justice, particularlygiven their positions in the Cypriot justice system, is ludicrous andwholly untrue.This is another desperate attempt to putrefy the facts. Interestingly there are no denials that my father-in-law Mr Inggs expressed his strong doubt that I committed these offences.

48.Mrs Inggs is well acquainted with my aforementioned relatives and oftheir former and present employment in the Cypriot Police Force. I findit disturbing, in the circumstances, that she has failed to disclose thesepertinent facts to this Honourable Court. 49.It is true that during the visit to Cyprus described by Mrs Inggs I visitedthe Cypriot Department of Home Affairs. It is a requirement of theCypriot government that all non-resident Cypriots, visiting Cyprus reportto the said department to advise them of the duration of their stay inCyprus. Non- resident Cypriots who fail to adhere to this requirementwhen visiting Cyprus face the possibility of conscription in the FrancinaRamakatane Cypriot army. It is for this purpose that I visited therelevant Cypriot government Department. It is not true that I visitedthe said department to renew some sort of official Cypriot document.50.

I therefore persist in my application for bail.

____________________________

DEPONENT

I certify that the Deponent acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit, that he has no objection to the making of the prescribed oath and that he considers this oath to be binding on his conscience. I also certify that this affidavit was signed in my presence at Port Elizabeth on this 20th day of MAY 2015 and that the Regulations contained in Government Notice R1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended by Government Notice R1648 of 19 August 1977, have been complied with.

____________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

Panayiotou - The State - Replying Aff - May 2015

Documents

Transcript of Panayiotou - The State - Replying Aff - May 2015