POLOKWANE – The State has launched a blistering attack on the credibility of Tshwane Metro Police Department Constable Peter “Gagash” Nonyane as it fights to keep him and his wife, attorney Charlotte Tibana, behind bars.

During closing arguments in the couple’s bail application before the Polokwane Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, the prosecutor zeroed in on Nonyane’s financial disclosures and questioned how his declared R31,000 gross monthly TMPD salary could cover expenses that include a reported R46,000 monthly Mercedes-Benz instalment.

“How on earth can it be possible for R46,000 debt to be paid by R31,000?” the prosecutor asked the court.

The State described the position as “paradoxical”, “self-contradictory” and “impossible”.

Nonyane has since disclosed additional sources of income in a supplementary affidavit, including money generated through entertainment-related work.

The State, however, questioned why those additional income streams were not fully explained in his initial bail affidavit and argued that his subsequent disclosure should be viewed critically when the court assesses his credibility.

State: Granting Gagash bail would be a ‘risk’

The prosecutor argued that the issue went beyond Nonyane’s finances and directly to whether the court could trust the information placed before it in support of his release.

The State submitted that the court would be “taking a risk” by granting Nonyane bail.

The prosecutor stressed that Nonyane is a police officer who should understand what constitutes income and argued that he should have been candid about his financial position from the outset.

The argument directly counters the defence case presented earlier on Thursday.

Defence attorney Hlawu Maluleke argued that Nonyane and Tibana have fixed addresses, strong family ties to South Africa and would stand trial if released.

The State wants the court to reach the opposite conclusion.

State challenges couple over potential witnesses

The prosecutor also attacked statements in the couple’s bail affidavits concerning their knowledge of potential State witnesses.

Tibana had stated that she was not familiar with the identities of witnesses at that stage.

The State disputed this, arguing that as an attorney involved with the deceased-estate files at the centre of some of the allegations, she would know people linked to those files who could potentially testify.

The prosecutor similarly challenged Nonyane’s statement concerning his familiarity with witnesses.

The State argued that Nonyane should have known that people connected to a Mercedes-Benz dealership involved in one of the disputed transactions could become witnesses.

These remain submissions by the State in opposition to bail and have not been determined as fact by the court.

State raises alleged intimidation concerns

The State went further, arguing that releasing the couple could create risks for witnesses.

The prosecutor referred to evidence previously presented during the bail proceedings concerning alleged threats and intimidation and argued that the court should consider whether there was a likelihood of interference if the accused were released.

The State alleged that Nonyane had been carrying a firearm during an encounter in which a person allegedly felt intimidated.

The defence has disputed the significance of that allegation, arguing earlier that no criminal case was opened by the person allegedly intimidated and that the State had not added an intimidation charge against Nonyane.

The State nevertheless maintained during its closing argument that the alleged circumstances should form part of the court’s risk assessment.

‘They can apply for a passport online’

Flight risk also emerged as another major battleground between the State and defence.

The defence argued that the couple previously travelled outside South Africa despite knowing about the investigation and returned voluntarily. Their passports are currently in the State’s possession.

But the prosecutor argued that surrendering existing passports did not eliminate the risk of evading trial, submitting that passports could be applied for online.

The State also argued that evading trial does not necessarily require leaving South Africa.

It relied on evidence concerning the circumstances preceding Tibana’s arrest to argue that evasion could occur within the country.

The defence has maintained that Tibana intended to hand herself over and that communication was made with the State concerning her surrender.

Prosecutor: ‘Not with allegedly stolen property’

One of the strongest moments in the State’s closing argument came as the prosecutor addressed the allegations involving money from deceased estates.

The prosecutor said the State had no problem with an accused person entertaining their community, before adding:

“But not with allegedly stolen property, including money of dead people.”

The statement was made in the context of the State’s allegations and does not amount to a finding that the money was stolen.

Nonyane and Tibana have denied the allegations against them.

State alleges attempts to interfere with investigation

The State also relied on evidence previously presented concerning an alleged meeting involving Tibana and investigators.

The prosecutor alleged that Tibana had sought to have investigations stopped while offering to rectify matters.

The State further referred to a voice recording which it says will form part of its case at trial.

It also raised payments allegedly made to people connected to some of the disputed estates and asked the court to consider whether those payments could have been intended to influence complainants.

Those allegations are disputed issues in the criminal proceedings and have not been tested at trial.

State says couple have failed bail test

The State ultimately urged the magistrate to consider the totality of the evidence rather than the couple’s personal circumstances in isolation.

The prosecutor argued that the interests of alleged victims, society and the administration of justice must also be weighed when determining whether bail should be granted.

According to the State, the couple have failed to satisfy the court that the interests of justice permit their release.

The prosecution asked the court to dismiss their bail applications.

The arguments set up a stark final contest before the magistrate.

The defence says Nonyane and Tibana have demonstrated that they will stand trial, comply with conditions and pose no flight risk.

The State says questions surrounding their credibility, alleged witness interference and the risk of evading trial point in the opposite direction.

The Polokwane Magistrate’s Court must now determine whether the couple should remain in custody or be released on bail while the criminal case continues.

Nonyane and Tibana face multiple charges including fraud, money laundering and theft. They have maintained their innocence.

This is a developing story. MDNtv is following proceedings at the Polokwane Magistrate’s Court.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content