Criminal Cops = “robber cops” - Cute?
No bail for ‘robber cops’
February 10 2015 at 11:22am
By Murray Swart - Staff Reporter
By Murray Swart - Staff Reporter
Galeshewe - The three Roodepan police officers who are accused of
robbing a tuck-shop owned by a foreign national, were on Monday denied bail in
the Galeshewe Magistrate’s Court.
This comes after their defence failed to convince the court that there
were exceptional circumstances warranting the release of Warrant Officer Johan
Joubert, Reserve Constable Edward Arendse and Constable OlebogengMolatlhwe
until their next court appearance on March 9.
The three are accused of robbing the Ethiopian-owned Jabulani Tuck-Shop
on Saturday, January 24, in full uniform while on duty and using an official
patrol vehicle.
It is also believed that the accused drew a firearm on the complainant,
threatening his life.
Relatives were visibly shocked by the decision, with the State arguing
that remanding the accused into custody was crucial if the South African Police
Service (SAPS) wished to maintain a level of trust with the community.
Magistrate Andre Williams on Monday said that the fact that the
courtroom was packed as the bail application continued, was evidence of the
level of public interest in the trial.
Williams also said that this incident had dented the relationship
between the police and the public because it was a violation that could well
have a long-lasting impact on maintaining law and order in the area.
All three on Monday stated in their affidavits that they have family
members who depended on them, hoping this would suffice as grounds for a
successful bail application.
Defence attorney, Ferdie van Heerden, argued that the role of the court
was to determine whether or not bail should be granted and not to decide guilt
or innocence at this stage.
However, Williams was not swayed by the arguments and said that while
the three should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, he did not feel
that the defence had presented any exceptional circumstances as required when
granting bail for a Schedule 6 offence.
“The applicants are police officers and the tracker on the vehicle,
signed out to applicant one (Joubert), is evidence that the vehicle was on the
scene despite the accused initially denying being in the vicinity of the
incident when first questioned by the investigating officer,” said the
magistrate.
All three accused claimed to have received messages stating that R3 000
would make the charges disappear, a claim Williams was sceptical of.
“If there is a conspiracy against the bail applicants, it means that the
applicants must have discussed the event with witnesses and the complainant.
Allegations of the requests (via text) for R3 000 mean the complainant must
have acquired the numbers from somewhere, which is highly improbable,” Williams
said.
“It is important that decisions have consequences and one of the
consequences of an arrest is that you may be kept in custody.
“If having a family was considered an exceptional circumstance then
nobody would ever be denied bail.
“The reason this court is so full is a sign of just how much public
interest there is in this case,” the magistrate added.
Williams also said that it was in the public’s interest that bail not be
granted to avoid creating the misconception that it is acceptable to undermine
authority.
“It is in the public interest to see what happens in this trial which
could place the whole judicial system under scrutiny.
“We don’t want the public to undermine authority and we need to
demonstrate that actions have consequences. Failing to do this could result in
lawlessness.”
The bail application began on Tuesday last week with Williams asking for
a postponement until on Monday in order for Joubert to appear in an identity
parade. The senior of the three officers, who is said to have been waiting in
the car while the alleged robbery took place, had not been positively
identified by a witness, but Williams believed that his defence still did not
present a strong enough case to grant him bail.
Diamond Fields Advertiser
