The suspect fatally wounded his former employee and injured another, who survived the shooting.
An Durban alleged drug dealer has suffered another setback after his appeal challenging the denial of his release on bail was dismissed.
Shirwin Nowtham will remain in custody until his trial begins after his application for leave to appeal was rejected by the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court.
Nowtham was charged with murder and attempted murder in connection with a shooting that took place a year ago.
Durban drug dealer ‘shoots’ his employees
It is alleged that on 29 August 2024, Nowtham fatally shot his former employee and wounded another, who survived being shot with a shotgun.
The survivor and the deceased had previously worked for Nowtham selling drugs.
On the day of the shooting, Nowtham and a man named Stephen arrived in a grey VW Polo and picked them up for another job.
At some point, the two victims were forced out of the vehicle, and Nowtham allegedly opened fire on them.
ALSO READ: Crime Intelligence CFO, co-accused granted bail in burglary cover-up
Nowtham was arrested on 14 September.
He was refused bail by the Verulam Magistrate’s Court on 4 October.
Rather than appealing that ruling immediately, Nowtham later renewed his bail application, citing new evidence.
In his application, the accused referred to his son’s ongoing illness, his own hypertension, and the survivor’s retraction of the claim that he was the shooter.
Survivior’s statements
The survivor had initially made a statement three days before Nowtham’s arrest and then a second one on 18 November.
In the second statement made to a police officer, the victim confirmed Nowtham had shot him and also claimed that the suspect bribed him during a prison phone call to change his testimony, paying him R5 000 and promised an additional R20 000 to drop the charges.
Despite this, the survivor maintained that he did not want to withdraw the charges.
On 25 November, attorney Mondli Mthethwa filed an affidavit stating that the survivor, accompanied by two men, approached him wanting to declare that Nowtham was not the shooter.
READ MORE: ‘Why were alarm bells not sounded sooner?’ – Jayden-Lee Meek’s mother denied bail
The survivor explained that he had first approached the police but was told they did not want to take his statement.
The victim then gave a further statement to another attorney, Ivy Mukweka, in January this year in which he claimed that Stephen, not Nowtham, was responsible for the shooting.
Nowtham contended that these developments weakened the prosecution’s case and amounted to new facts warranting his release on bail.
The bail application was, however, denied on 14 March, leading Nowtham to appeal to the high court.
High Court judgment
In his ruling, Judge Robin Mossop acknowleged that there is “substantial uncertainty” about the survivor’s definitive version of events.
He highlighted the state’s argument that other evidence, which Nowtham had not focused on, pointed to his involvement.
One such fact was that the deceased did not die immediately, and reportedly told a security guard that Nowtham was the shooter.
“That dying declaration was heard by a security guard who, alerted by the sound of the shooting, proceeded to the scene where he found the injured survivor and the dying deceased,” Mossop said.
READ MORE: Likely to destroy evidence: Accused’s bail bid rejected in Ditebogo Phalane murder case
The judge also referenced evidence linking Nowtham with the crime through the grey Polo.
“The security guard apparently stated that he had observed a grey Polo motor vehicle with CY registration plates leaving the scene.
“Immediately after the shootings, the motor vehicle was returned to the dealer who had sold it to the appellant, and it was apparently swapped for another motor vehicle. Why this strange turn of events occurred was not explained by the appellant.”
Mossop further pointed out that telephone tower evidence placed Nowtham’s phone near the shooting location.
He said the Verulam Magistrate’s Court gave a “reasoned judgment” on the bail application based on the new facts.
‘Extremely strange’
According to Mossop, the only potentially new fact was the sequence of affidavits from the survivor.
“Objectively speaking, the circumstances under which the affidavits that purported to exonerate the appellant came into existence are extremely strange.
“The survivor described himself in the affidavit drafted for him by Ms Mukweka as being an adult unemployed and unmarried male,” the judgment reads.
“In addition, he was apparently a person who had to be given a handout to purchase groceries, yet he was prepared to consult with two different private attorneys to prepare two statements.
“Why did he consult private attorneys? Where did he get the money to do this from?
“Why did he simply not report what he wished to say to the investigating officer and thereby avoid the cost that he must indubitably have incurred consulting with private attorneys?
“I do not accept, as allegedly stated by the survivor and as previously mentioned, that the Saps refused to take his statement. The answers to these questions are not immediately obvious,” Mossop continued.
Nowtham’s appeal was consequently dismissed as evidence showed his ability to interfere with state witnesses.
NOW READ: Cop and prosecutor get bail in R1.6 million extortion case
