Bail application of city businessman continues

THE LEGAL representative of a 34-year-old Kimberley business owner who is accused of the attempted murder and assault of his life partner and their two minor children stated that the complainant is the one who should be in the dock.

This came out during the bail application of the accused, which has been ongoing in the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court for the past two weeks.

The accused is facing one charge of attempted murder, two charges of assault, one charge of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), one charge of malicious damage to property, one charge of providing a firearm to a person who is not allowed to be in possession thereof, failure to lock a firearm in a safe and one charge of being found in possession of more than 200 rounds of ammunition.

The attempted murder charge relates to an alleged event on May 12, 2023 where the complainant stated that the accused strangled her, pulled her hair and pushed her against a cabinet while hitting her with his fists.

The assault GBH charge relates to an alleged event where the accused allegedly hit the minor child with a leather belt.

This testimony was relayed to the court through a statement from the complainant that was read out by the investigating officer, Warrant Officer Attie Brouwers.

The accused’s legal representative, advocate Sakkie Nel, however, rubbished the statement of the complainant.

Nel told Brouwers that security video footage, which recorded the events of the alleged incident on May 12, showed that the complainant was the one who was hitting the accused.

“In the video it is clear that the complainant assaulted the applicant. It looks like a hard blow the complainant hit the applicant. The video shows that it is in fact the complainant who committed an act of domestic violence against the accused.

“Further footage shows the complainant making hand gestures at the applicant . . . in fact one can see her showing the middle finger to the applicant when she walked away. You (Brouwers) told the court that the statement of the complainant stated that there was an argument between the complainant and the applicant. The complaint was upset and left after her sister picked her up. The statement said that the applicant tried to stop her.

“In the video, it shows that the applicant appeared to be the one who told the complainant that she cannot drive in that state and tried to stop her. Hence he did not want to give her the bakkie’s key. The video also shows that the complainant was not afraid of the applicant,” said Nel.

Brouwers conceded that the video does show the complainant hitting the applicant, but stated that the complainant had said that the part of the house where the applicant allegedly assaulted her, had no security cameras.

Nel continued and said another video showed that, contrary to the statement of the complainant that their minor child was forced by the accused to carry a firearm at all times, there was no firearm found on the minor at the time the police raided the house.

“The footage from a fourth video shows Tactical Response Team (TRT) members breaking the electric fence of the house of the applicant. One can see about 15 TRT members climbing over the fence. The members were armed and were wearing bulletproof vests. They were also wearing balaclavas and hard helmets, not the berets as they usually do.

“One is unable to see their faces because of the balaclavas, which only exposed their eyes and not the rest of their faces. The day the TRT team went to the house they did not find any firearm on the minor. Yet it was stated by the complainant that the minor was not allowed to take the firearm off and had to carry it everywhere, especially when the applicant was not at home. On that day the applicant was not home, but members did not find the minor with a firearm,” said Nel.

Brouwers agreed that it was indeed true that the minor was found without a firearm.

Nel said that further allegations that a shotgun was permanently standing next to the headboard in the bedroom and also that the safe was always unlocked were also untrue.

“The shotgun was found in the safe the day the police went to the house. The safe was also not found to be unlocked,” Nel said.

In his affidavit, the applicant stated that he was away on business in De Aar when he was informed that the police were looking for him.

“On Monday, May 15, 2023, my mother called me and informed me that she saw police vehicles at our house. I was in De Aar at the time. I phoned my employee, who was at the house at the time helping my two minor children with their schooling. The complainant was not at home as she left the house on Friday after we had an argument.

“My employee informed me that 15 heavily-armed police officers entered the house and were looking for me. I then asked him to speak to one of the officers. The officer on the other end of the phone informed me that an assault charge had been laid against me and that I must report to the police station.

“We arranged that I should report to the police station on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, as I was still in De Aar at that stage. Shortly thereafter I spoke to Warrant Officer Brouwers, who informed me that I must report to the police station immediately. At that stage I was in Britstown and I sent my location pin to Brouwers from my cellphone as proof.

“I told Brouwers that I shall leave for Kimberley immediately and he said that he will meet me at my house. I left for Kimberley immediately after my conversation with Brouwers and found several police officers at my house. I was arrested at the house and was informed that I was being charged with domestic violence and assault,” the affidavit read.

The applicant pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.

The case continues and the applicant remains in custody.