Witness tampering, disrespect for the court process, a “propensity to commit schedule 1 offences” and lying are some of the reasons why former Arthur Kaplan director Hoosein Mohamed was denied bail by the Randburg magistrate’s court on Thursday.
Mohamed, who was arrested three weeks ago, is charged with five counts of pointing a firearm and two counts of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
He is accused of assaulting and threatening Laila Motala, the liquidator appointed to oversee the winding up of the jewellery company, at a business meeting on June 1 at the jeweller’s office in Sandton.
An estimated R50m in jewellery and luxury watches has gone missing from several stores, with Motala alleging in an affidavit that Mohamed and his assistant Ammaarah Ismail took the jewellery.
Magistrate Liezel Davis noted that investigating officer Det-Sgt Aubrey Tshisane testified that he had confiscated all nine firearms legally held by Mohamed and therefore had no reason to oppose bail. However, no evidence proving the confiscation of the firearms had been presented to the court.
She noted that the state had opted to call lawyer Ian Small-Smith to testify. Small-Smith was in court on a watching brief for complainant Motala.
“A watching brief attorney is duty-bound to answer questions and follow the case behind the scenes. He is an officer of the court with an over-arching duty to the court and to act with integrity,” Davis said.
Commenting on his evidence, Davis said Small-Smith had explained how he was contacted by Motala’s father to help open an assault case. Motala, he said, feared for her life and safety as two of her colleagues — liquidators Cloete Murray and his son Thomas — had recently been murdered.
“He laid emphasis that Motala had discovered millions of rand worth of jewellery had gone missing from Arthur Kaplan and Sandton police were not interested in pursuing the matter. The court cannot comment on this as the accused has not been charged, no evidence has been presented and it is therefore only an allegation at this stage.”
Davis said she accepted that Motala had secured a search warrant, had gone to Mohamed’s home to look for the missing jewellery and encountered his twin brother and 17 security guards on the property — “all this while the applicant was already in custody”.
Going through the version Mohamed gave on the stand, she said he had been summoned to the office by his personal assistant who told him that Motala was at the office “throwing laptops around”. Mohamed had rushed there, been manhandled by security officials at the entrance and his gun had fallen on the floor.
He denied assaulting Motala or threatening her. He denied attempting to escape, or having any connections with Sandton police. He denied ever issuing instructions to staff to remove jewellery from any stores. He claimed his gun collection was for display purposes only.
He dismissed claims that he had threatened a staffer while in custody as false accusations from a dishonest person who had received three written warnings and was facing dismissal.
There are many underlying currents of muddied waters in this case. But these can be dealt with in the trial
— Magistrate Liezel Davis
“Under cross-examination the applicant said all the charges against him were fabricated and all the witnesses were lying — even those who are independent police officials.
In considering the grounds needed for bail to be granted, Davis said though it had been shown that Mohamed had a fixed address and claimed he was not a flight-risk, this was “cold comfort to the court as even a lack of travel documents is not a deterrent to a person with means”.
She said prima facie evidence and the state’s case were strong, and though no documentary proof of Motala’s physical injuries had been submitted, the court had been given photographs of her injuries.
“The applicant did not take the court into his confidence, and he was not honest,” Davis said.
She noted that Mohamed had access to his cellphone while in court, which she saw as an indication of his ability to contact witnesses.
She said the state had proven grounds for “specific persons” to believe their lives to be in danger, and there was “a propensity by the applicant to point firearms”.
“There are many underlying currents of muddied waters in this case. But these can be dealt with in the trial,” Davis said, before postponing the case to July 24 for further investigation.
Mohamed’s lawyer Ian Levitt told TimesLIVE Premium that they “respectfully disagree with the court’s judgment” and that he had been instructed to look at Mohamed’s prospects.
“If there are grounds, we will appeal,” he said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.