Durban Magistrates court denied bail for Durban businessman. File image
A Durban businessman was denied bail again this week after his detention for allegedly threatening, intimidating and impairing the dignity of prosecutors and court officials regarding a previous court outcome that went against him.
Avinash Ramkistan, 38, who operated in the financial sector, apparently hurled vitriol, threatened “bloodshed”, referred to a judge as a b**** and said “his people will come” in emails, voice notes and social media posts.
He applied for bail again on Tuesday at the Durban Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate Scelo Zuma, citing “new facts”.
Ramkistan has been charged for contravening the National Prosecuting Authority Act No 32, relating to improper interference, hindrance or the obstruction of NPA officials doing duty, three counts of intimidation and two counts of crimen injuria.
He was represented by advocate Ravi Reddy and instructed by the Logan Naidoo and Associates law firm.
Ramkistan was arrested on April 25 after appearing at the Durban High Court for a civil matter. Zuma denied his initial bail in May, ruling that there was a likelihood Ramkistan would interfere with witnesses and investigations.
His “brush” with the NPA and others stems from the three civil matters brought against him by a banking institution and he countered with two court matters against the bank .
In his affidavit Ramkistan said that three of his matters were handled at Durban High Court by the same acting judge between May and June last year, when he represented himself.
The first matter related to the bank attempting to foreclose on two of his immovable properties over mortgage bond non-payment.
Ramkistan’s response was that the bank must withdraw his and every property repossession in the country, where it did not cancel contracts it entered with the client before the legal action, which was supported by case law.
“Effectively, this means that if the contract between parties is not cancelled, there can be no dispute or claim for the full contract amount. The claim must only be for the outstanding monies due, not repossession,” Ramkistan’s affidavit stated.
The bank conceded in court that it did not cancel contracts.
His second matter related to his “unlawful” debarment from the financial services sector, which crippled him financially, and his breach of contract dispute with a JSE-listed company and its subsidiary was his other court matter.
Ramkistan claimed the acting judge dismissed the first two matters without “lawful” reason and adjourned the third matter indefinitely, in spite of the other party flouting certain rules of procedure.
“I found it extremely alarming and astonishing that the acting judge could hear all three matters and make decisions that were questionable.”
He questioned whether she was a “real judge or not”.
Ramkistan found it strange that his matters were moved to a “private courtroom”, with the SAPS and security officials present inside and outside, leading him to believe it was intimidatory behaviour.
He questioned the appointment of the acting judge and requested a copy of her appointment letter from the NPA and the Department of Justice, and also made a formal High Court application, which he served on the KZN Bar Council, based on his request.
The acting judge then filed an harassment interdict against him, which he opposed.
When the acting judge’s lawyer provided him with a scanned copy of a letter from the then Minister of Justice, Ronald Lamola, confirming her appointment, Ramkistan immediately contacted the office of Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
He was informed that only Zondo appointed judges.
This added to Ramkistan’s frustrations. Therefore, he regarded the letter as “irregular”. He responded by bringing fraud charges against the acting judge in December.
It was investigated and the NPA declined to prosecute.
He requested a certificate from the NPA for private prosecution but was refused, which “angered and disheartened” him.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions then confirmed that there was no good chance of success and would not issue a certificate because it would be an abuse of the process.
“The right to prosecute is my right and does not impact the State,” he said.
The outcome resulted in the alleged vitriol via various platforms.
Ramkistan said in his affidavit that the State’s case against him was weak and had inconsistencies, the charges were “couched and exaggerated” to keep him in custody and his arrest and detention was unlawful.
He said his continued detention would prejudice his preparations for his two other civil matters with the bank in November, where he will represent himself.
During proceedings Reddy reiterated that Ramkistan’s arrest was unlawful.
“The investigation is now complete. There is no possibility that he will be able to interfere with witnesses or investigations. The court can impose strict provisions.
“His entire attitude has changed. He says he wants his day in court,” said Reddy.
About the explosive comments and social media postings that were made in January/February, Reddy indicated that Ramkistan was arrested in April.
“Nothing actually came of it, it was just a rant.
“There is no evidence that he is a violent person. Yes, he says a lot and hurts peoples feelings…but that is not violence. It is his first brush with the law,” said Reddy.
Senior State prosecutor Advocate Vaneshri Moodley said: “There are no new facts submitted. It was a rehashing of what was already considered by the court.”
Zuma said as the applicant stood before the court, he was in custody lawfully by the previous court order.
“The reason the court refused bail previously was the fact that there was a likelihood the accused will interfere with witnesses and considered the extent of resentment which is reflected in evidence.
“The new facts before the court is that the applicant has had a change of attitude.
“It appears to me that the factors which existed then still exist today and this was merely a revision of the previous application. No new facts have been established,” said Zuma.