Human trafficking case: Mother refers to baby as a ‘dog’
It was the intervention of police that resulted in the arrest of the four who allegedly tried to sell the baby for a better offer of R140000.
The mother (30), who allegedly attempted to sell her baby, cried in court after bail was denied to her.
Magistrate Vuyokazi Diza handed down judgement recently, in the bail application of four people accused of trafficking a baby.
At the first sitting of the bail application on May 12, the court heard how the four involved in this case, attempted to sell the new-born infant for financial gain.
In statements from investigating officer, Detective Warrant Officer Michelle van Niekerk of Margate Saps, the court heard how an offer of R25 000 was received for the child from a Nigerian national.
It was the intervention of police that resulted in the arrest of the four who allegedly tried to sell the baby for a better offer of R140 000.
Van Niekerk opposed bail and believed they should remain in custody because if one of the four disappeared, it could jeopardise the case. Also, there was concern that they would interfere with state witness.
“The mother of the baby referred to the child as a dog, and wanted nothing to do with it. She was no mother to the child,” read the detective’s statement.
Her 42-year-old boyfriend (accused three) who faces a schedule one offence was granted bail of R3000.
The court heard he had a chronic illness and lived in a shack on a property he owned in Uvongo. He lived there without running water or electricity.
Diza said accused three had indicated that he had ties to the area of jurisdiction, and it can be agreed that he can’t just up and leave.
His bail conditions are that he cannot interfere with state witnesses or police investigations. He must also report weekly to Margate police station.
A husband (39) and wife (40), (accused one and two), who are believed to be the ‘sellers’ of the three-day old infant were also denied bail.
Accused one, two and four (the baby’s mother) are facing a schedule six offence which carries severe penalties, including life imprisonment.
In a a strange twist, accused two arrived to court wearing a hijab over a longish pair of shorts. Her husband has been wearing a taqiyah (cap) since the start of the case.
In a lengthy judgement, Diza gave various reasons for denying bail to the three accused.
She said the court needed proof of residential addresses and employment, and this was not provided.
Diza said there was mention of staying in Cape Town or Krugersdorp. “Cape Town is far away and the police wouldn’t know where to look for you, unlike accused three, who has ties to the area.”
“The court invited you to make this information available. It is something worth knowing and that’s why I called for it (proof of residences) as ‘something was lacking’.”
Diza said so much could go wrong (if bail was granted) and they were unable to provide sufficient significant details.
She further said she cannot grant bail as it’s not in the interest of justice and she can’t accept the exceptional circumstances.
With regards to accused two’s four children, Diza said the court has been informed that they are safe with relatives.
The court heard how the mother of the baby (accused four) was going through a difficult time and needed help.
Diza said the court questioned that if accused four was staying with her mother, why couldn’t she have helped with the baby.
Instead, the baby was handed over to accused one and two.
* To protect the identity of the child, the four accused in this case, cannot be named.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Like the South Coast Herald’s Facebook page, follow us on Twitter and Instagram
