Kimberley - The leader of the Geloftevolk Republikeine, Andre Visagie, has been ordered to hand himself over into custody today after he was denied bail for a second time in the Northern Cape High Court last week. Visagie was sentenced to five years imprisonment in 2011 on charges of the illegal possession of ammunition and firearms.
He was supposed to begin serving his sentence on June 1 after he was denied a bail application on May 30. A second urgent application for bail and an application for leave to appeal to the Judge President of the Supreme Court of Appeal was also dismissed in the Northern Cape High Court on Friday.
Visagie intended to apply for a review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal after his petition to overturn his conviction was dismissed.
Legal representative for Visagie, Jurg Prinsloo SC, stated that evidence that had not been submitted before could have absolved his client of guilt.
He requested for bail to be urgently granted to Visagie, or to allow witnesses to be called to testify on the new evidence. This included an affidavit from his father-in-law, Isak Ferreira, stating that he had handed over ammunition and firearms in his possession to Visagie for safe keeping, as he did not have a lock-up safe.
He also presented another affidavit made by Lieutenant-Colonel Francois van der Merwe, from the Crime Scene Management Criminal Record Centre in Pretoria, regarding fingerprints that were found on a sealed wooden chest which was discovered in Visagie’s son’s bedroom cupboard.
Van der Merwe examined the fingerprints but was unable to find enough points on the impression to make a positive comparison.
“No witnesses testified on the fingerprints, including Visagie, his son Jan or Van der Merwe. There is a possibility that someone who was wearing gloves had planted the wooden chest, containing ammunition and firearms, in Jan Visagie’s cupboard,” Prinsloo stated.
He added that the court was not informed about how many fingerprints were lifted from the chest or where they were situated.
Prinsloo stated that Advocate Sakkie Nel, who represented Visagie during the trial in the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court, should be called to testify why these affidavits were never presented before the court.
“The affidavits that were also in the possession of State Advocate Shaun Abrahams, who prosecuted the case, were never argued as evidence.”
He also advised the court to call Koos de Wet from the Lion Brigade of the Geloftevolk Republikeine, to the stand to explain why a choking device, which was found in Visagie’s bedroom, was manufactured from the same material as one of the handmade guns in the wooden chest.
“Visagie was under the impression that De Wet was a bosom friend, while on the contrary, he was involved in a plot against him. He was not aware of the implications of not leading evidence on an expert report on the choking device.”
During the trial, Visagie had angrily distanced himself from De Wet, indicating that “members of the Geloftevolk Republikeine were not traitors”.
Prinsloo stated that they would appeal the decision of the court regarding the urgent bail application to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.
State Advocate Adele van Heerden pointed out that Visagie had exhausted all his legal avenues.
“The applicant was found guilty of the charges and was denied bail. He failed to bring any new evidence to support his application.
“Visagie is an intelligent man who also studied law, it is implausible that he would not have been aware of the implications of the expert reports on the choking device.”
She stated that Visagie had religiously taken notes during his trial and would have familiarised himself with all aspects of the trial.
Olivier pointed out that this evidence was included in the dossier, whereby Visagie’s daughter Susan Visagie had obtained additional evidence regarding the fingerprints and her grandfather’s affidavit pertaining to his 9mm pistol.
He questioned why this information was not presented during his bail hearing on May 30.
Olivier indicated that Advocate Sakkie Nel had indicated in a statement that he had not received any instructions to proceed with fingerprint evidence. “It is unlikely that Nel would have acted in any way to prejudice his client.”
He highlighted how the report of the investigating officer, who was unable to match any of the fingerprints, was missing from Visagie’s application.
Olivier ordered Visagie to report to the clerk of the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court on Monday, in order to begin serving his sentence.
He also dismissed his application for leave to appeal to the Judge President of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
“I am not convinced that another court will arrive at another decision.”
Diamond Fields Advertiser