ADV MOHOMANE

Without knowing what was discussed in the telephone calls, the Commission is not in a position to rule on the apprehension of bias arising from those calls.

“In the absence of knowing, or the Commission knowing, what was contained in those telephone calls, the Commission cannot rule on the apprehension of harm ... or of bias.”

The apprehension of bias depends also on the applicant's perception of the contents of discussions in the telephone calls, and based on that, the Commission may be in a position to rule on bias.

“based on how the applicant perceives in his mind what the contents of these discussions are, then the Commission can be in a position to make a ruling as to whether or not there is an apprehension of bias.”

Mr Mogotsi did not have attorneys from around January 2026 and only came on record during the Easter holidays of 2026, but the timing of filing the application was still within a reasonable period.

“Mr Mogotsi did not have attorneys from , I think, January of 2026. And according to the letters that were filed in the Commission, my attorney only came on record, I believe it was during the Easter holidays.”

Adv. Mohomane objects to repeatedly asking Mr Mogotsi about John’s identity as the phone is unavailable and the issue has been addressed multiple times.

“the question that the Evidence Leader is putting to Mr Mogotsi... has been asked on numerous occasions, and his response thereto is that the phone is not available, it was taken by the police... That is the basis of my objection”