Alleged gang boss objects to psych test, says it will make him ‘look mad’

ALLEGED gang boss George “Barney” Peters has vehemently objected to being sent for mental observation, insisting that there is nothing wrong with him after announcing that he intends to represent himself in court.

Peters emerged from the holding cells in the Northern Cape High Court to inform the court: “Ek wil my lawyer wegja” (“I am chasing my lawyer away”).

He was ordered out of the courtroom three weeks ago due to his disruptive outbursts and has since declined repeated invitations to rejoin the proceedings.

“I am not going to any psychiatrist – it will appear as if I am mad. I will die if I go there,” he told the court this week.

Peters and his co-accused – Britney Arends, Stephanie McAnda, Simone Rose, Chinaaz Mentoor, Abigail van Wyk, Chane Adams, Michael Peters, Clive Peters, Deon May, Pamerston Mentoor, Henry Blom, Vincent Rosen, Tshepo Malambi, Nico Hofuza and Shawn Smith – are facing 117 charges, including murder, attempted murder, gang activity, the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area, public violence, money laundering, racketeering, defeating the ends of justice, assault, kidnapping, fraud and drug-dealing.

Peters said he was “prepared to take the risk” of representing himself and complained that his 17-page document that he submitted to the court was “not being taken seriously”.

“My rights are being violated. I am in my right mind. Only guilty people need a lawyer. Do I have to sit through the whole trial to hear that I am not guilty?” he asked.

Concerns over self-representation

His legal representative, Advocate Vasiliki Patrinos, said she had advised Peters that he was dealing with a complex case with potentially severe consequences.

“He is a layperson who does not have knowledge of the law. What happens when the accused is not present in court and there is no one to represent him?”

She said Peters had alternated between saying he did not wish to make use of her services and saying that he did want her to represent him.

“To my great surprise, he exclaimed that he does not want another lawyer – he wants to represent himself. However, he told me that he respects me.”

Patrinos recommended that Peters undergo a one-day psychiatric assessment to determine whether he is capable of representing himself.

“His reasons for self-representation – because he wants to see his children, that he is innocent, and that he is not willing to listen to the lies of State witnesses – do not make logical sense. He was sad and crying when he spoke about his children and I had to give him tissues. He has been in custody for a long time and feels distressed.”

She added that several family members had pleaded with her not to abandon Peters.

“Some family members requested that he be offered psychological help. The mothers-in-law of his lady wives are taking care of the children and indicated that social workers are assisting and that processes are in place.”

Patrinos also indicated that Peters had suffered a head injury and had been experiencing headaches.

State advocate Jacques Rosenberg stated that an accused person cannot be forced to accept legal representation.

Judge orders assessment; defence lawyer removed

Northern Cape High Court Judge Almé Stanton said she would not allow Peters to disrupt proceedings and ordered that he undergo a one-day psychiatric evaluation despite his objections.

She instructed that Patrinos should remain Peter's legal representative pending the outcome of the psychiatric report.  

Stanton also ruled that Advocate Renier Pieterse – representing Hofuza and Smith – be removed from the trial due to a potential conflict of interest.

She pointed out that while further delays in the trial were regrettable, it was necessary to protect the integrity of the trial. 

Pieterse previously represented Section 204 witness Demain Hannie on an attempted murder charge arising from a shooting at Alice Court in Roodepan on October 17, 2020, a matter in which Hannie was discharged in the Kimberley Regional Court.

Hannie is currently in custody serving a sentence for an offence that has yet to be disclosed to the court.

Rosenberg argued that Pieterse had been privy to information provided by Hannie and had consulted with a State witness while acting as a defence attorney.

He said that although Pieterse’s clients wished to retain him, doing so could expose them to an unfair trial.

Pieterse maintained that he was not in possession of any additional confidential information. He argued that lengthy delays in appointing new counsel would prejudice both his clients and the co-accused in their right to a speedy and fair trial.

He argued that his removal would result in a negative financial impact on him as well as other legal representatives. 

Peters, Hofuza and Smith will reappear on December 5 for the purposes of legal representation. The remaining accused are set to return to trial on March 2.