PORT ELIZABETH, June 6 (ANA) – The state has argued that murder accused Christopher Panayiotou’s legal team are re-hashing old facts in his new bail application which is ongoing in the Port Elizabeth magistrate’s court.
During court proceedings on Monday, state prosecutor Marius Stander said that it was abundantly clear that all the “supposed” new facts pertained to the strength of the state’s case. He said that no new evidence was placed before court which dealt with Magistrate Abigail Beeton’s findings during Panayiotou’s first bail application last year.
Stander said that the defence did not deal with Beeton’s findings that Panayiotou was likely to tamper with evidence, was a flight risk or the fact that he was financially over committed.
He also argued that Panayiotou’s application to prove the existence of new facts needed to be done against the backdrop of findings made at the Grahamstown High Court where his bail appeal was rejected.
The Port Elizabeth businessman is alleged to have orchestrated his wife Jayde’s kidnapping and subsequent murder in April last year.
It is alleged Panayiotou paid Luthando Siyoni, a bouncer at his Infinity night club, to hire hitman Sizwezakhe Vumazonke to kidnap and murder Jayde.
The state alleges that Sinethemba Nenembe assisted the alleged hitman Vumazonke to kidnap and kill Jayde, allegedly at the behest of her husband.
Stander said that the defence’s claim that Siyoni was assaulted was factually incorrect.
“Siyoni did not sustain an injury during his arrest and he gives an explanation for the injury. Siyoni explains in detail that his rights were explained. This evidence is placed before this court by Siyoni himself. This must be weighed up against what [Panayiotou] is alleging. We know [Panayiotou] was not present. Everything [Panayiotou] has placed before this court is a massive thumb suck. Who would know best whether he was assaulted? Who would know best whether he was influenced to make a statement? Siyoni or [Christopher], that was not even present?” said Stander.
He further dismissed the claim that Siyoni was severely beaten by a number of police officers questioning the likelihood that over a period of four hours, he only sustained one swollen eye.
The defence has previously indicated they intend to argue that the evidence of Siyoni will or might be excluded, in that he was “severely beaten” into making a confession in order to implicate Panayiotou.
“A lot has been said about the evidence of Siyoni, but it needs to be remembered that the evidence of Siyoni needs to be assessed in conjunction with the transcribed conversation between [Panayiotou] and Siyoni..[Panayiotou] was never acting as an agent for the police, why would he search Siyoni for a wire? Why would [Panayiotou] instruct Siyoni to destroy evidence? Why would [Panayiotou] tell Siyoni not to phone him, if he was trying to entrap Siyoni?” asked Stander.
Stander said that Panayiotou had not introduced new evidence that could prove the existence of exceptional circumstances.
In addition Stander furnished the defence with an affidavit supplied by former cop Leon Eksteen. This statement deals with the alleged threat of disinheritance by Panayiotou’s father, Costa.
Costa Panayiotou has previously denied ever passing a comment to Eksteen questioning his son’s involvement in Jayde’s disappearance.
The affidavit was not read into the record on Monday.
Defence Advocate Terry Price is expected to reply to the state with regards to Eksteen’s affidavit.
The matter was postponed until June 10.
-African News Agency (ANA)
