A full bench of the Cape High Court on Wednesday rejected a second bail bid by murder accused Najwa Petersen, expressing scepticism over her ”almost miraculous recovery” from mental illness.
”The appellant’s case relating to her precarious state of health, as presented in the first bail application, appears to have undergone a complete volte-face in the second,” the judges said.
Petersen and three alleged hit men are charged with the murder of her husband, theatre personality Taliep, in the couple’s Cape Town home in December 2006.
In her first bail application before a Cape Town regional magistrate, her legal team presented evidence that she was psychotic and suicidal, and needed to be out of jail so she could be properly cared for.
When that was refused, she appealed to, and was rejected by, a high court judge.
She reapplied in the regional court for bail, was refused again, and again turned to the high court.
Delivering a ruling on Wednesday, this time on behalf of a full bench that included Cape Judge President John Hlophe, Judge Deon van Zyl noted the state had argued that the claim that she was suicidal had ”boomeranged” in the first application and was therefore now being ”restated”.
He said what was particularly disturbing was that one of Petersen’s psychiatrists, Dr Christopher George, felt it necessary by the time of the second application to ”amend his initial opinion materially in respect of his diagnosis of the appellant’s bipolar mood disorder and suicidal tendencies”.
In the same way, the initial finding by another psychiatrist, Dr Barry Fortuin, that Petersen was functioning at a 20% level had, in the second application, been withdrawn and abandoned as incorrect.
”In the process, the credentials of Dr Fortuin and the reliability of Dr George’s initial diagnosis have been brought into question,” Van Zyl said.
This created the clear impression that Petersen had misrepresented the true nature of her medical condition.
”It also raises the question whether she has been totally frank, honest and in good faith regarding her state of health,” he said.
”In any event, even if the appellant has indeed made an almost miraculous recovery since the time the first application was brought, why would it be necessary for [family friends] Mr and Mrs Ajouhaar to move into her house as caretakers and why would she need nursing services for 24 hours a day?”
Dealing with Petersen’s claim that her young daughter needed her presence at home, Van Zyl said he was quite satisfied that she was in excellent hands, under the supervision of people who loved and cared for her.
On the issue of whether Petersen would try to evade her trial, he said despite the undertaking by family members living in Namibia that they would not allow her to become a fugitive from justice, it would be a simple matter for her to relocate to that country.
The existence of extradition arrangements was no guarantee that she would, in fact, be extradited.
Evidence that she had sought to deposit the proceeds of Taliep’s life insurance payout into her Namibian account raised more questions than answers.
There was no guarantee that the money, if paid into the account, would be used for the creation of a trust for her daughter, as Petersen claimed.
”It would, in fact, be at the disposal of the appellant as a useful nest egg for future use,” the judge said.
”The unavoidable conclusion to which one must necessarily come is that there is a strong probability that the appellant would, if released on bail, attempt to evade her trial,” Van Zyl said.
The trial of Petersen and her co-accused is scheduled to start in the Cape High Court on Monday. — Sapa