Africa-Press – South-Africa. The state has opposed Corrie Pretorius’ bid for bail, claiming his release would not only disturb public order, but that his life would be in danger because of angered community members.
Pretorius, 49, appeared in Groblersdal Magistrate’s Court on Friday, where he formally applied for bail.
He has been charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and pointing of a firearm after he allegedly assaulted a 16-year-old boy at a fish and chips shop in the small Limpopo town earlier this month.
In opposing the bail application, the state led testimony that Pretorius’ life would be in danger if he were released from custody.
Investigating officer Sergeant Jappie Skosana told the court the incident had angered residents.
He said this was evident from a shutdown of the town.
News24 observed roads around the court were blocked by about 1 000 protesters, mostly clad in ANC or EFF regalia.
Several shops in the vicinity had been closed, but many others remained operational.
Skosana also told the court that Pretorius would be safer in prison as the “outside” was “more dangerous for him.”
This was supposedly justified by the fact that Pretorius’ wife had already opened a case of intimidation.
The court heard she was receiving threatening calls and unknown people had also visited their home, banging and shaking the gate.
State prosecutor, Advocate Billy Mudavhi also claimed that Pretorius’ release would disturb the public order.
Mudavhi said:
“It’s written on the wall that should he be released, there could be pandemonium.”
The thrust of the state’s main argument was that Pretorius’ release on bail would likely disturb the public order or undermine the public peace or security.
The state said that was one of the factors the court had to look at when determining whether or not to grant bail.
Holding court hostage
Advocate JJ Venter, representing Pretorius, submitted that the court should not be held hostage by the subjective opinions of the public.
Venter said the defence recognised there has been a “massive uproar outside.”
However, he told the court it could not deny bail just because there was an outcry.
He argued that doing so would set a dangerous precedent as it would render the court hostage to the opinion of the community and not the rule of law.
“The community has convicted my client, but before the rule of law, he is not a guilty man,” Venter said.
He said under law, Pretorius has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In his closing arguments, Venter said the court should look at the law and whether Pretorius had made a case for bail.
Earlier, Venter read an affidavit by Pretorius into the record.
Pretorius stated that he was not a flight risk and would not contact or interfere with witnesses, the victim or the investigation.
Venter also argued that the investigating officer, who testified in opposing bail, was biased.
Venter said this was because Skosana had only obtained certain witness statements and also concluded that the 41-second video clip was adequate evidence for a conviction.
This despite the fact that according to Skosana, the entire altercation took about 10 minutes.
“His testimony will jeopardise the functioning of the rule of law and interest of justice,” Venter said.
Sickness and assault claims
In asking for bail, Pretorius said he suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy and depression, and had to take chronic medication, which he had not received while incarcerated.
Without going into detail, Pretorius also claimed he had been severely assaulted while being held in custody.
“Due to the nature of the charges and the allegations as covered in details by the media, my life is under threat in correctional services,” he said in the affidavit.
“As conveyed to the SAPS by the legal representatives, I have been severely assaulted while incarcerated and it cannot be stated that I am not faced with the distinct possibility of being assaulted again.
He added:
However, Skosana told the court he had not heard of these claims, nor was any case opened.
The state asked where the evidence was to back up the claims of assault.
According to police, an argument broke out between Pretorius and the teenager at the takeaway shop over the use of seasoning.
Pretorius allegedly demanded to use the seasoning first when an argument ensued.
Part of the incident was caught on video which has since gone viral.
In the video that appears to have captured part of the incident, Pretorius can be seen dragging the victim around on the ground while carrying a firearm.
He then kicks and stomps on the boy, who lies helplessly on the ground.
The court has postponed judgment of the bail application to 29 June.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
