Bail applicant George Cloete has objected to cross-examination by the state on his bank account transactions during his bail application hearing in the Keetmanshoop Magistrate's Court on Wednesday. 

Cloete, together with his brother Bino Cloete and wife Charmaine Cloete, faces charges of violating the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and illicit trafficking under the Diamond Act. 

Midway through cross-examination by the State on his bank account transactions covering the period from 6 February 2024 to 2 May 2025, Cloete raised an objection and argued the questions were irrelevant to a bail hearing. 

He requested the court to direct the state to focus on the bail hearing and not to conduct the matter as if it were a pre-trial hearing. 

Moreover, Cloete contended that the state had failed to provide evidence opposing his bail application, citing the alleged weakness of the case against him regarding his purported property and illicit diamond trafficking. 

He also described the cross-examination of the banking transactions as a delay tactic, unfair and unconstitutional. 

State Prosecutor Iyaloo Haipinge disagreed, arguing the application did not explain the merits of the case. 

She added that her cross-examination of the banking transaction focuses on the accused's wealth and forex trading, as raised in his bail application testimony. 

Magistrate Mulonda Masuku ruled that the 23 pages of bank transactions be handed in as exhibits, as suggested by Haipinge. 

Cloete did not oppose the ruling.  

Haipinge also put it to Cloete that he would agree that he suddenly made profits on his forex trading after the million-dollar diamond robbery at Namdia on 18 January last year.

Cloete replied that it was coincidental. 

Taking the witness stand, Bino Cloete pleaded to the court to grant him bail for the sake of his children, in particular his minor children aged three and seven years. 

According to Cloete, since his arrest eight months back, he has fully cooperated with the investigators of the case and has no intention of absconding or interfering with the investigation. 

Moreover, he indicated to the court that he has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes. 

This, he added, gives him uncertainty as to what the future holds for him, and therefore, he wishes to spend the remaining time with his children. 

He maintained that the state had no prima facie case against him. 

The bail hearing continues today.