Suspended banker claims police violated his rights in R18 million cocaine bust

SUSPENDED banker Raed Cupido claims that his constitutional rights were infringed after cops nabbed him with cocaine worth R18 million.

Cupido and co-accused Christopher Carelse returned to the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court on October 10, where Cupido presented a new bail application.

Cupido will learn his fate on Friday after both accused were denied bail two months ago.

Cupido was arrested on June 10 with 15 bricks of cocaine worth an estimated street value of R18 million, an AK-103 Rifle, Uzi Pro Rifle, five semi-automatic firearms and 130 rounds of ammunition inside a storage unit in Roeland Street.

Meanwhile, Carelse is alleged to be his accomplice, with the State claiming that they are so-called “first receivers” of drugs being smuggled into the Cape.

Cupido allegedly rented unit 869 while Carelse rented unit 868, which are located next to each other.

In his new application, Cupido stated that the search of the unit was done without a search warrant as the search of unit 868 was unlawful and therefore the state has no case and he should be granted bail.

However, investigating officer Lieutenant-Colonel Christiaan van Renen said that when he arrived at the scene, he warned him of his rights and Cupido acknowledged that he understood his rights.

He added that Cupido gave consent to search both units.

Cupido refuted the officer's version and further alleged that police had prior information that the drugs were stored in the unit 869, rented by him.

He said: “SAPS had received prior information pertaining to the alleged crime some days before my arrest and in fact kept surveillance of the premises for six days.

“The failure of SAPS to obtain a search warrant prior to the search of unit 868 infringed my constitutional right to privacy and property and was unlawful.

“A search warrant, if obtained prior to the search, would have allowed SAPS to access unit 869, as this would have been the unit that would have been identified as the one in which the alleged items would likely be stored.”

He further added that he was refused access to his lawyer when the search occurred, that he was not warned of his constitutional rights prior to the search, he was not afforded the right to a lawyer prior to the search and that he was unlawfully dispossessed of his phone.