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 PANAYIOTOU
do 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.
made

in

this

affidavit

are

done

on

the

Legal submissions

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.
AD PARAGRAPH 2 THEREOF:

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.
AD PARAGRAPH 3 THEREOF:

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:

6.1

AD PARAGRAPH 3.1 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE FIRST

PAGE) THEREOF:

The information herein is correct.

6.2

AD PARAGRAPH 3.2 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE SECOND

PAGE) THEREOF:

The information herein is correct.

6.3

AD PARAGRAPH 3.3 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE SECOND

PAGE) THEREOF:

The information herein is correct.

6.4

AD 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.

6.5

AD 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.

6.6

AD PARAGRAPH 3.6 (THE SIXTH BULLET ON THE SECOND

PAGE) THEREOF:

6.6.1

The information in the first sentence of this paragraph

is inaccurate and I deny it.

6.6.2

Even 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.

6.6.3

For the remainder I take issue with the information

provided herein.

6.6.4

In any event, I submit this alleged information as

irrelevant to my bail application.

6.7

AD PARAGRAPH 3.7 (THE SEVENTH BULLET ON THE

SECOND PAGE) THEREOF:

I admit the contents hereof.

6.8

AD PARAGRAPH 3.8 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE THIRD

PAGE) THEREOF:

6.8.1

I deny the contents herein.

6.8.2

In 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.

6.8.3

I 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.

6.9

AD PARAGRAPH 3.9 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE THIRD

PAGE) THEREOF:

6.9.1

It 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.

6.9.2

For the remainder I deny the contents of this

paragraph.

6.10

AD PARAGRAPH 3.10 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE THIRD

PAGE) THEREOF:

6.10.1

The information in the first two sentences is an

oxymoron.

The loan was in fact approved in the

amount of R151 000.00.

6.10.2

I admit that the monies were transferred to my

account and that I paid the transfer duties as alleged.

6.11

AD PARAGRAPH 3.11 (THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE THIRD

PAGE) THEREOF:

I have no knowledge of the contents herein.

6.12

AD PARAGRAPH 3.12 (THE FITH BULLET ON THE THIRD

PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny the contents hereof.

6.13

AD 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.

6.14

AD PARAGRAPH 3.14 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE FOURTH

PAGE) THEREOF:

I again have no knowledge of the contents herein.

6.15

AD PARAGRAPH 3.15 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE

FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny each and every allegation made in this paragraph.

6.16

AD PARAGRAPH 3.16 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE FOURTH

PAGE) THEREOF:

6.16.1

I deny the contents of this paragraph.

6.16.2

More 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.

10

6.17

AD PARAGRAPH 3.17 (THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE

FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny the contents of this paragraph.

6.18

AD PARAGRAPH 3.18 (THE FITH BULLET ON THE FOURTH

PAGE) THEREOF:

I similarly deny the contents hereof.

6.19

AD PARAGRAPH 3.19 (THE SIXTH BULLET ON THE FOURTH

PAGE) THEREOF:

I do not have knowledge of the contents hereof.

6.20

AD PARAGRAPH 3.20 (THE SEVENTH BULLET ON THE

FOURTH PAGE) THEREOF:

I likewise have no knowledge of the contents hereof.

6.21

AD PARAGRAPH 3.21 (THE FIRST BULLET ON THE FIFTH

PAGE) THEREOF:

11

6.21.1

I deny that the contact I had with Accused 1 (and

upon which I will elaborate hereunder) had a nefarious
purpose.

6.21.2

On 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

12

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.

6.21.3

For 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.

6.22

AD PARAGRAPH 3.22 (THE SECOND BULLET ON THE FITH

PAGE) THEREOF:

I deny any knowledge of the contents of this paragraph.

6.23

AD PARAGRAPH 3.23 (THE THIRD BULLET ON THE FITH

PAGE) THEREOF:

13

I have no knowledge of the information herein and specifically

deny contents of the second sentence herein.

6.24

AD 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.

6.25

AD 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.

6.26

AD PARAGRAPH 3.26 (THE LAST BULLET ON THE FITH

PAGE) THEREOF:

14

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.

6.27

AD PARAGRAPH 3.27 (THE FIRST BULLET ON PAGES SIX

TO ELEVEN) THEREOF:
6.27.1

The contents of this paragraph is a transcribed version

(or so I assume) of the meeting between Accused 1
and I.

6.27.2

I 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.

6.27.3

On that supposition I am advised not to deal with the

specific allegations provided in this paragraph.

6.27.4

These allegations appear to be the centrepiece of the

States case against me.

If a trial court disallows

15

evidence it is more than likely that an acquittal will

follow.
6.28

AD PARAGRAPH 3.28 (THE BULLETS ON PAGES ELEVEN)

THEREOF:

6.28.1

Mr 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.

6.28.2

It 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.

16

6.28.3

The evidence of Eksteen will be the subject matter of

incisive and protracted cross-examination during the
trial relating to his role in my entrapment.

6.28.4

For 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.
8.1

AD 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.

8.2

AD PARAGRAPH 4.2 SECTION 60(5)(a) OF THE CPA:

17

I refer to the contents of my founding affidavit.

8.3

AD 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.

8.4

AD PARAGRAPH 4.4 SECTION 60(6)(a) OF THE CPA:

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.

8.5

AD 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.

18

8.6

AD 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.

8.7

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

8.7.1

I 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.

8.7.2

I want to state emphatically that I do not agree that

the States case against me is as strong as the
deponent attempts to convey.

8.7.3

It 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.

19

8.8

AD 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.

8.9

AD PARAGRAPH 4.9 SECTION 60(6)(i) OF THE CPA:

8.9.1

It 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.

8.9.2

Insofar as the deponent asserts that there is no bilateral 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.

20

8.9.3

The reference to the matter of Mr George Louka is

facetious, to say the least. It is irrelevant insofar as
my bail application is concerned.

8.10

AD 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

AD PARAGRAPH 4.11 SECTION 60(7)(a) OF THE CPA:

8.11.1

I stand by the comments in my founding affidavit.

8.11.2

The 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.

8.12

AD 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

21

incarcerated pending finalization of the investigation. It is trite

that detention for the purposes of further investigation is frowned
upon by our Courts.

8.13

AD 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.

8.14

AD 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.

8.15

AD PARAGRAPH 4.15 SECTION 60(4)(e) OF THE CPA:

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

22

8.16

AD PARAGRAPH 4.16 AND 14.17 SECTION 60(8)(A)(a)

AND SECTION 60(8)(A)(e) OF THE CPA:

8.16.1

It 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.

8.16.2

I 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:

23

10.1

The 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.

10.2

It 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:

11.1

The deponents remark that I am nothing more than a store

manager at the OK Grocer is unfounded and frankly demeaning.

11.2

The

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.

24

11.3

What 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:

12.1

I am advised not to get involved in the speculative comments by

the deponent in these paragraphs.

12.2

The 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

25

whatever his status, certain evidentiary cautionary rules will be

applicable to him.

14.
AD PARAGRAPH 53 (PAGE 17) THEREOF:

14.1

The deponents assertion that I was in financial difficulty is

entirely incorrect and has no basis. Frankly it is misleading.

14.2

I 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.

14.3

It 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:

26

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.
AD PARAGRAPH 58 (PAGE 17) THEREOF:

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

27

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.
AD PARAGRAPH 62 (PAGE 17) THEREOF:

I have already dealt with this issue elsewhere in this affidavit and reaffirm my denial thereof.
19.
AD PARAGRAPH 65 (PAGE 18) THEREOF:

I deny that I furnished false information or withheld vital information

prior to my arrest.

20.
AD PARAGRAPH 80.2 (PAGE 18) THEREOF:

20.1

The 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.

28

20.2

In 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.
AD PARAGRAPH 80.5 (PAGE 18) THEREOF:

21.1

I 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.

21.2

What 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.

29

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):

23.1

The 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.

23.2

The mere fact that I had to extract an eulogy from the Internet to
deliver at my wifes funeral does not and cannot carry the

30

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.

23.3

I 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.

23.4

I 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.

31

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.

32

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

33

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

34

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 Pretoria
confirmed to my attorney that it had received the passport from Cyprus,
but had not sent it on to me. The High Commission confirmed further
that my Cypriot passport was still in their possession.
34.
Until the information set out in the preceding paragraph was imparted to
me, I was totally unaware that a Cypriot passport had been issued to
me. 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.

35

Swanepoels comment that the timing of the obtaining of the passport

must 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 statement
as 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 hearsay
by 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

36

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 person
who is fully acquainted with the unique nature of the business and its
operating systems. A new store manager would have to be trained and
I am the only person who would be able to give him/her such training. I
cannot therefore be summarily replaced as store manager without the
very 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.

37

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 this
affidavit 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 my
prior 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 wholly
untrue. I deny everything that is contained in his affidavit. Frankly I
have a sneaking suspicion that Tiervlei was encouraged to lie under
oath.
43.

38

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 be
resolved 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 as
a witness in the bail proceedings, so that his version may be tested by
cross-examination.
His version is fatally improbable since:
43.1 If I had called him where is proof of such a call?
43.2 How could I get hold of this man whom I do not know from a bar
of soap?
43.3 He cannot say who he was supposed to kill who could I possibly
have killed to assist me against prosecution?
43.4 How 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.

39

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

46.
It is also correct that foreign visitors to Cyprus require a guarantor. The
guarantor to whom Mrs Inggs refers is my uncle Andreas Panayiotou. He
is 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 in
the 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 of
my aforementioned family members are incorruptible and the
suggestion that they would harbour a fugitive from justice, particularly
given their positions in the Cypriot justice system, is ludicrous and
wholly untrue.

40

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 of
their former and present employment in the Cypriot Police Force. I find
it disturbing, in the circumstances, that she has failed to disclose these
pertinent facts to this Honourable Court.
49.
It is true that during the visit to Cyprus described by Mrs Inggs I visited
the Cypriot Department of Home Affairs. It is a requirement of the
Cypriot government that all non-resident Cypriots, visiting Cyprus report
to the said department to advise them of the duration of their stay in
Cyprus. Non- resident Cypriots who fail to adhere to this requirement
when visiting Cyprus face the possibility of conscription in the Francina
Ramakatane Cypriot army. It is for this purpose that I visited the
relevant Cypriot government Department. It is not true that I visited
the said department to renew some sort of official Cypriot document.

41

50.
I therefore persist in my application for bail.

____________________________
DEPONENT

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 20 th 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