Dad who claimed he bought and sold firearms to pay for son’s legal fees denied bail appeal
Share this article:
Cape Town – A Cape Town father accused of formerly harbouring his fugitive son, named one of the top criminals in the Western Cape, has been refused bail for the second time following his appeal. This while he faces charges relating to being in possession of illegal firearms to money laundering.
The State argued that Moegsien Haywood, 63, was a danger to society and had claimed he had allegedly been part of the sale and purchase of illegal firearms to help pay for his son’s legal fees and had apparently ordered an artillery of explosives and hand grenades, instructing that the serial numbers were removed.
This week, Judge Deidre Kusevitsky ruled that Haywood be denied bail as the State already had a prima facie case after documents were allegedly forged and went missing.
“I am of the view that given the existence of a forged J7 in the Appellant’s prison file and the subsequent disappearance of that docket to investigate the matter, that there is already prima facie evidence that the administration of justice has been compromised.
“These allegations, especially the forging of a presiding officer’s signature in circumstances such as this, is of such a serious nature, that the interest of justice dictate that bail should in these circumstances be refused.”
According to Advocate Isaacs, the State had a strong case against Haywood.
Haywood is the father of Ziyaad Haywood, who was convicted and sentenced for the murders of three men and the attempted murder of a woman.
Ziyaad was sentenced to three life terms after he entered into a plea agreement and faced 21 charges relating to murder, kidnapping, robbery and weapons.
Ziyaad had been a fugitive before his arrest in 2018 and was found hiding inside the closet of his parents home in Lotus River.
Haywood worked as a messenger for an attorney for 15 years.
According to court documents, Haywood, brought a formal bail application in Mitchells Plain Magistrates’ Court and it was denied on October 19 2019 and again, on May 19 2020, attempted a formal application which was abandoned.
A new application was brought via an appeal on March 24 2021.
Police arrested Haywood and two other suspects in Mitchells Plain in 2019, during a joint operation with five deactivated pistols and money used allegedly in transactions for the firearms and two vehicles.
According to court papers, the State has a strong case and, that Haywood had hid his son and had purchased firearms. “This is an appeal against the refusal of bail in the court. The Applicant is arraigned on various offences of which are listed in Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
“This includes robbery with aggravating circumstances, contraventions of the Firearms Control Act and contraventions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.
“Applicant brought a formal bail application in Mitchells Plain and it was denied on October 19 2019.
“‘The Strength of the State’s case: the following is stated.
“The Kensington case: the police searched the Applicant’s premises and found a vehicle which had been reported hijacked and in the kitchen cupboard they found two backpacks and a bag containing firearms and ammunition.
“The police also found a Suzuki motorcycle in a locked room on the property. It is later transpired that the motorcycle was stolen in Johannesburg in an alleged robbery and both Applicant and his son were positively identified.”
The case was later withdrawn.
Sixteen months later, the police arrived at the Applicant’s residence in Grassy Park and found his son hiding in a cupboard.
Both the applicant and his wife were charged with harbouring a fugitive. They were both released on bail and charges were later withdrawn, while the son remained in custody.
“With regards to the charges of the illegal possession of firearms, it is common cause that the Appellant was arrested in what is colloquially known as a trap, a procedure… The Appellant states that he was coerced by one “Bilal” to purchase firearms for resale so that he , the Appellant could raise money for his son’s legal fees.”
According to the Senior State prosecutor, Advocate Alfred Isaacs Haywood had allegedly ordered explosives: “The State contended that the Appellant is a danger to society. According to Mr Joubert, the investigating officer, he contended that they had received information from a source that the Appellant ordered fully automatic assault rifles, like Ak47’s, hand grenades or explosives and explosive devices.
“He also specified that the Appellant instructed that all the weapons had to be clear of any serial numbers.
“An undercover operation ensued. On the designated day, the Appellant arrived at the designated meeting area.
“A purchase process of R2 500 per firearm was agreed upon…The Appellant approached the undercover agent who showed him a bag containing firearms and handling it with a piece of toilet paper, went back to his vehicle and returned with the money, throwing R17 000 in cash into the agent’s car boot and collecting the bag containing the firearms.
“It is common cause that he was arrested on these charges whilst out on bail. The State maintains that the reasons given by the Appellant for the purchase of the weapons are misleading. They argued if it was the intention of the Appellant to purchase the firearms for a cheap price for resale and profit..
“When the Appellant’s premises were searched and his son found hiding in a cupboard, the following items were also inter alia seized: 3x semi automatic weapons, 1x silencer, 425 rounds of ammunition, 1x signal jammer, 5x high court stamps and 1 x official SAPS identification certificate.”