42

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORT ELIZABETHSITTING AT PORT ELIZABETHCase No.: 27/1837/15In the matter of: CHRISTOPHOROS CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOUApplicantand THE STATE Respondent

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION ito S60 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 51 OF 1977 (CPA)

I, the undersigned, CHRISTOPHOROS CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOUdo hereby make oath and say that: ABACKGROUND1. 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.

BTHE 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 a 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. CPERSONAL 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.

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 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 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;

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 TIES34. 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. I am the only son of my parents, but I have two sisters, to wit:

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.

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.

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 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;

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;

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. I 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;

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 agreements with most countries in the world. 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 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;

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 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;

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);

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 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 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 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 R45000.00 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 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 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....

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 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.

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 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:

(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.

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 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 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 a 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.

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. A 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....

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. CONSLUSION84. 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 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).

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 and I am confident that my legal representatives will be able to seriously damage 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 CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOUApplicant

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