State strikes back at claim on Panayiotou sting venture
Phone records, diary entry conflict with testimony that official was not consulted
STATE advocate Marius Stander hit back at the defence yesterday, using cellphone records and a diary entry to show that a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) in Grahamstown was, in fact, consulted on a sting operation which ultimately led to Christopher Panayiotou’s arrest for murder.
Advocate Selvan Gounden took Stander by surprise on Wednesday when he denied any involvement in the setting up of the sting in which Panayiotou seemingly discussed the hit on his wife, Jayde, in April 2015.
He told the Port Elizabeth High Court that none of the policemen investigating Jayde’s murder had contacted him.
Yesterday, Stander questioned Gounden about his relationship with his fellow deputy director of public prosecutions, Advocate Malherbe Marais, senior state advocate Zelda Swanepoel and Organised Crime Unit detectives Warrant Officer Leon Eksteen and Captain Kanna Swanepoel.
After Gounden said he had a good relationship with each of them, Stander said he found it strange then why their versions differed significantly from his.
According to Stander, the deputy director of public prosecutions in Port Elizabeth, Advocate Indra Goberdan, had contacted Gounden on April 28 2015, a day prior to the sting, to seek his advice.
Gounden had then phoned Swanepoel as a sounding board, and after further disensuring cussions with Marais, had phoned Goberdan back to inform her that authorisation was not needed.
Stander said further that Eksteen had spoken to Gounden, as he often did about these types of cases, and the police had then followed the advice of making sure the trap took place in an enclosed environment, such as a car, as well as that middleman Luthando Siyoni did not wear a wire on his person.
Swanepoel had, meanwhile, noted her conversation with Gounden in her diary, while telephone records showed the sequence of the calls.
Gounden responded that after receiving a call from Goberdan, he had taken her concerns to Marais because he had dealt with such cases.
“I phoned two other [prosecutors] for advice,” he said.
“They concurred with me that authorisation was not needed and I then told this to advocate Goberdan.
“Thereafter, my involvement ceased.”
From his understanding, however, the entrapment had already taken place and Goberdan had been merely speaking to him after the fact.
He said Goberdan had seemed upset because Marais thought she had authorised the trap without his consent.
Stander said that according to Marais, he had specifically discussed undercover wires with Gounden.
Gounden could, however, not remember this.
The trial continues.