Mr Mogotsi

Mr Maluleke stayed at Mr Matlala's house after being robbed and was contacted to testify against General Khan, with Mr Mogotsi involved in requesting testimony in favour of Khan.

“Mr Maluleke, I know him. He was staying at my house. ... he already spoken to some guy, Mr Mogotsi, and Mr Mogotsi asked him to go there and then to testify, but I do not know what he was supposed to say in his testimony.”

Mr Maluleke told Mr Mogotsi he would testify in favour of General Khan but wanted a promotion and some money in return.

“I am going to testify in favour of General Khan, but I want you to speak to your people to give me a promotion and some money.”

Mr Maluleke was recorded during a meeting (arranged via Mogotsi) while asking for a promotion and money in exchange for favourable testimony.

“they even recorded him, I think, because he was asking for promotion and money.”

Mr Matlala did not terminate his relationship with Mr Mogotsi but kept him close on Mr Cele's suggestion despite knowing what Mogotsi was doing, until Matlala's arrest.

“I did not terminate him , I did not terminate the relationship , but he was not , we were not part of the best of buddies because of what he was doing . I knew what he was doing , but because of what Mr Cele said , I just kept him close , so to a day when I eventually got arrested .”

Mr Mogotsi was either using Minister Senzo Mchunu’s name to swindle money from Matlala or working with him while also asking for money on the side; Matlala cannot be 100% sure.

“There is two things here which I cannot be hundred per cent sure . It is either he was using the Minister ' s name , Mr Senzo Mchunu ’ s name to swindle money from me , or he was working with him , but still he was asking money also on the side .”

Matlala gave money to Mogotsi because of Mr Cele's suggestion, not expecting personal benefit.

“I was giving him money because of what Mr Cele suggested .”

According to Mr Mogotsi's evidence, the discussion about needing cash was in relation to the witness's meeting to assist, and Mr Matlala arranged to give the cash through Khan if the information was worth it.

“"I think he needs cash." And ... Dlamini says: "Okay, arrange with Khan to give him cash if the information he has is worth it."”

Mr Mogotsi had a discussion with Minister Mchunu around December-January 2025 about whether a person alleged to be a kingpin in the North West had been arrested or not.

“Because at a certain point, Mr Mogotsi had a discussion with Minister Mchunu about whether a person has been arrested or not and whether an arrest has been made...the discussion was about an alleged kingpin in the North West.”

The arrest Mr Mogotsi referred to about the Zama-Zama kingpin himself was actually made in December-January, separate from other arrests of hitmen.

“The arrest in this instance was of the hitmen and the arrest that Mr Mogotsi was referring to was when the Zama-Zama kingpin himself was actually arrested, and that was in December, January.”

Mr Mogotsi has provided WhatsApp messages and telephone call disclosures to the Commission, but it is unclear if anything has been omitted.

“he has given disclosure of what was discussed in those telephone calls”

Mr Mogotsi excluded some material from submission to the Chief Evidence Leader, exemplified by a WhatsApp message with a laughing emoji but tears on the face, which was not a call but was nonetheless excluded.

“There is the one during Mr Carrim's testimony where Mr Mogotsi sent to the Chief Evidence Leader what was normally used as laughing emojis, but with tears coming down the person's face...That too was excluded.”

Mr Mogotsi explained in a reply affidavit that he took what he thought was necessary to make a case, which included deletion of some WhatsApp chats.

“he took what he thought was necessary in order to make a case”

There is a possibility that deletions of WhatsApp chats were calculated to create an impression that Mr Mogotsi was pushing a certain narrative by deleting material discordant with what the Chief Evidence Leader was saying.

“Is there not a possibility that the deletions are calculated to create the impression that Mr Mogotsi is pushing for?”

Most of the calls made were by Mr Mogotsi rather than the Chief Evidence Leader, indicating Mr Mogotsi was seeking assistance.

“Most of the calls, the bulk of the calls, were by Mr Mogotsi and not the other way around... he was knocking at the door of the Chief Evidence Leader, seeking to be assisted”

Mr Mogotsi unsolicitedly offered to provide information about Mr Carrim to Mr Chaskalson, which is not disputed by Mr Mogotsi himself.

“he does not deny that he is the one that approached Mr Chaskalson with an offer to provide information about Mr Carrim”

The approach by Mr Mogotsi to Mr Chaskalson with an offer to provide information about Mr Carrim cannot logically serve as a ground for complaint or recusal related to bias or unfairness.

“how can it be a legitimate ground for complaint that Mr Chaskalson was talking to me about Mr Carrim? How can it be? Just logically ... it can never be a basis for claims of bias or fear of bias”

Mr Mogotsi reached out to Mr Chaskalson and engaged him in communication to offer information relevant to Mr Carrim.

“Mr Mogotsi unsolicited offered to Mr Chaskalson that I will give you information about Mr Carrim ... I have stuff on Carrim”

The mere approach by Mr Mogotsi to the Evidence Leader cannot be a ground for recusal application nor a basis to anticipate bias from the Evidence Leader.

“if the mere approach on its own is what the recusal is about, I will have to concede, in isolation it is not a ground to bring a recusal application, neither is it a ground to anticipate any form of biasness from the Evidence Leader”

The communication exchange between Mr Mogotsi and Mr Chaskalson included a message where Mr Mogotsi says 'I believe you can help me' and Mr Chaskalson responds 'I think so too, but you cannot mess me around', which might imply seriousness about the information exchange.

“I believe you can help me ... I think so too, but you cannot mess me around”

Mr Mogotsi expected that if he did not bring useful information, he could not be indemnified or saved, indicating pressure on the matter.

“the impression that was formed according to Mr Mogotsi's case is that if I do not bring anything valuable ... then I cannot be indemnified or I cannot be saved”

The phrase 'you cannot mess me around' in the communication is interpreted as urging the other party to provide the promised information without delay or trickery.

“the messaging around 'mess me around' forms an impression that give me the information, do not play with me”

If Mr Mogotsi has truthful, verifiable, and corroborated information, Evidence Leaders should ask him to provide that information to put it to Mr Carrim for a public hearing response.

“If Mr Mogotsi has information which is the truth and can be verified and corroborated through other means, what is wrong with Evidence Leaders asking Mr Mogotsi to provide that information so that it can be put to Mr Carrim?”

There is no basis to have the Evidence Leader recused specifically regarding Mr Mogotsi if only the isolated issue is that Mr Mogotsi approached the Evidence Leader.

“if that aspect is taken in isolation and the only issue is that Mr Mogotsi approached the Evidence Leader, then it is the correct position there is no basis to have the Evidence Leader recused specifically with regards to Mr Mogotsi.”

If Mr Mogotsi feels that in the absence of his information being provided or throwing Carrim Suleiman under the bus does not work out, then he has a problem moving forward, and that is where the inclination of biasness comes in.

“if as the events unfold and the conversations and the interactions, Mr Mogotsi starts feeling that in the absence of the failure to provide or to throw Carrim Suleiman under the bus does not work out, then he has got a problem moving forward. And that is where the inclination of biasness come in.”

Mr Mogotsi approached the Evidence Leader bona fide hoping to assist with information that can help the Commission.

“When he approached the Evidence Leader, it was done bona fide in the hope that he has information that can assist the Evidence Leader.”

If Mr Mogotsi's information has the effect of throwing Mr Carrim under the bus and if true, there is nothing wrong with that.

“And if that information has the effect of throwing Mr Carrim under the bus, if that information is true, what is wrong with that?”

Mr Mogotsi alleges he was promised protection and indemnity to give information to potentially come out of the Commission unscathed.

“The core or the challenge here is Mr Mogotsi alleges that he was promised. He says, I am promised protection, I am promised indemnity, and if I do it, I might just get out of this unscathed. There is a promise.”

It is Commissioners who decide what happens to implicated people, not the Evidence Leaders.

“It is Commissioners who decide what happens to Mr Mogotsi and other people who are implicated. It is not the people who lead evidence. Their job is to present the evidence to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners decide what happens to all the people who are implicated.”

Mr Mogotsi alleges there is undue influence involved, described as help me, then I can do this for you.

“But there is an influence of some sort. It is undue influence to say, help me, then I can do this for you.”

Mr Mogotsi says he got the impression his protection from adverse findings was conditional on his willingness to provide information and documentation to the Commission.

“I was left with a distinct impression that my protection from adverse findings by the Commission was being made conditional upon my willingness to provide information and documentation.”

No evidence is found in WhatsApp messages or phone calls exchanges that Mr Chaskalson promised Mr Mogotsi that if he gives information on Mr Carrim, he would come out of the Commission unscathed.

“there is nothing in that communication that brings that sort of message across. No evidence before us that Mr Chaskalson promised me that if I give him information on Mr Carrim, I will make sure, I promise you that I will help you out to come out of the Commission unscathed.”

Mr Mogotsi does not allege in calls or affidavit that Mr Chaskalson promised him immunity or protection in exchange for information.

“Mr Mogotsi does not say in any of our calls that was said, and he does not allege that in the affidavit. He simply says, I got the impression.”

Mr Mogotsi's impression was that a promise was made that he would be protected from adverse findings if he gives debtor incriminating evidence on Mr Carrim.

“That he was made a promise, that he would be protected from adverse findings if he gives debtor incriminating evidence on Mr Carrim.”

Mr Mogotsi made a call to the Evidence Leader asking how to protect him and stated a fear that someone named Sana might want to 'take him down'.

“there is a question that come from Mr Mogotsi that says, how do you protect me? The next questions say, this guy, I believe that Sana maybe wants to take me down”

Mr Mogotsi reached out to the Evidence Leader offering new information relevant to the Commission.

“Mr Mogotsi made the offer that he had information, new information to give to the Chief Evidence Leader”

During the phone call between Mr Mogotsi and the Evidence Leader, additional information was discussed in the form of proof of payment and bank statements, which the Evidence Leader later obtained.

“during this phone call, there was a discussion about additional information that the Evidence Leader sought, which was in the form of proof of payment and bank statements. And then he then says in his affidavit that he became aware on that 10th of March that the Evidence Leader has gotten hold of these proof of payments and the bank statements”

Mr Mogotsi is the person who initiated contact with the Evidence Leader and the Evidence Leader entertained his offer of information.

“Mr Mogotsi is the one who reached out. And according to these records, indeed that is the case. Now, when Mr Mogotsi reach out, the Evidence Leader also entertains him”

The Chief Evidence Leader invited two other members of the Commission's team, including Mr Dlamini, to meet with Mr Mogotsi, showing that if he wanted to act improperly, he would not have included others.

“The Chief Evidence Leader when he called two other parties or members ... who form part of the team for the Commission to come with him when he goes to meet with Mr Mogotsi”

The Chief Evidence Leader would not have invited others to listen if he intended to ask Mr Mogotsi for damaging information about Mr Carrim Suleiman.

“If the Chief Evidence Leader wanted to act improperly, would he have invited other people to come listen to him going to say to Mr Mogotsi, I want you to give any dirty you can give me on Mr Carrim. Would he have acted in that manner?”

There was ongoing interaction between the Evidence Leader and Mr Mogotsi, which strained their relationship even before a recusal application.

“there has been interactions between the evidence, Chair, and Mr Mogotsi, which have strained whatever relation that they might have had. And to demonstrate that even prior to the recusal application”

The Evidence Leader labeled Mr Mogotsi a liar when he gave testimony but still listened to his information, requiring corroboration due to Mr Mogotsi's reputation.

“when Mr Mogotsi was giving testimony, the Evidence Leader labelled him a liar. Now, you have this person who is a liar, and he comes to you and he says he has information, and you take the word of a liar and you entertain him and your unwit that information”

The Chief Evidence Leader stated in his affidavit that he would still listen to what Mr Mogotsi says but would require corroboration because Mr Mogotsi is known to be a liar.

“the Chief Evidence Leader says that I would still listen or consider what Mr Mogotsi is say, but from where I am sitting, because Mr Mogotsi has been shown to be a liar, I would want to have corroboration of whatever it is that he were to tell me”

Mr Mogotsi and the Evidence Leader engaged in numerous phone calls, messages, missed calls, and emojis over two days before confirming an appointment to meet.

“there is numerous phone calls, there is messages, there is missed calls, there is emojis that come for a period of two days. And the appointment is finally confirmed on the second day at 16:13”

Mr Chaskalson and two investigators waited for Mr Mogotsi for two hours for an appointment, which Mr Mogotsi did not attend, leading to a wasted appointment time.

“he does say that they had been waiting for Mr Mogotsi ... waited for two hours for him to arrive”

Mr Chaskalson states that the WhatsApp message 'What happened to you?' is because Mr Mogotsi had failed to arrive at a consultation appointment, not a secret meeting.

“message of what happened to you is because Mr Mogotsi had not arrived here at the college, not a secret meeting”

Mr Mogotsi indicated willingness to come and testify and asked for the date when he would be subpoenaed.

“Mr Mogotsi asks at 11:31: "When are you bringing the subpoena as?" ... indicating a willingness to come and testify”

Mr Chaskalson warned Mr Mogotsi that he could not be messed around due to missed appointments.

“Mr Chaskalson says: "I think so too, but you cannot mess me around"”

Mr Chaskalson stated he would try to fit Mr Mogotsi into the calendar next month and would get back with possible dates next week.

“I will try to work out when we can fit you into the calendar. It will have to be next month. I will get back to you next week with possible dates”

Mr Mogotsi asked how to get involved and finish, expressing he wished he knew exactly what to do.

“How do I get involved and finish? Wish I knew what to do exactly”

There is a factual dispute about the content of a phone call on 9 March 2026 between the Evidence Leader and Mr Mogotsi, with one party saying certain things were done, the other denying.

“there is a factual dispute herein one party says I did, and the other says I did not ... nobody knows the contents of the phone calls and what was discussed between the Evidence Leader and Mr Mogotsi”

Mr Mogotsi approached the Evidence Leader and gave evidence relating to his interactions with Mr Carrim, which was not hidden and was discussed openly.

“Mr Mogotsi had approached the Evidence Leader and had given them evidence relating to his interactions with Mr Carrim”

Mr Mogotsi alleges that the Evidence Leader encouraged him to produce damaging information against Suleiman and offered help, believing Suleiman was lying and had implicated Mr Mogotsi wrongly.

“Mr Mogotsi says that: “The Evidence Leader says that get many thing against Suleiman and I will help you. He further stated that Suleiman had implicated me and that I should find a way to defend myself. He expressed his belief that Suleiman was lying, that Suleiman had thrown me under the bus and that he wanted me to do the same to Suleiman.””

The Chief Investigator confirms Mr Mogotsi was persistently calling after Mr Carrim started giving evidence and threw Mr Mogotsi under the bus.

“The Chief Investigator greets them and then says: “Mogotsi has been calling me nonstop.” ... “Mogotsi has been calling me nonstop since Carrim started giving evidence and threw him under the bus.””

Mr Mogotsi arranged a meeting with the Chief Investigator for 10:00 which did not materialize, and later a 14:00 meeting was also arranged but also did not take place.

“...the 10 o'clock meeting is a meeting that did not materialize. Mr Mogotsi did not show up. And after contact was revived, an arrangement was again made... for a meeting at 14:00 of the same day. That too did not materialize.”

Mr Mogotsi did not have any attorneys around the time Suleiman was giving testimony at the Commission, as per Mogotsi's own affidavit.

“paragraph 6.1 gives a picture of what happened when Mr Mogotsi reached out to the evidence leader. And he says that it was around that time he did not have any attorneys, which coincided with the time that Mr Suleiman was giving testimony in the Commission.”

Mr Mogotsi's WhatsApp and telephone calls with the evidence leader caused him grave concern regarding the evidence leader's impartiality.

“the content of the conversations caused him grave concern regarding the evidence leader's impartiality.”

Regarding the 9 March call, the evidence leader states he does not have a detailed recollection of what was discussed but does deny encouraging Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim and categorically denies this.

“On page 82, at paragraph 17, this is what he says: “I have no detailed recollection of what was discussed.” ...On 84, paragraph 103, he says: “I would never have encouraged Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim. I categorically deny.””

Mr Mogotsi called the evidence leader and the evidence leader suggested that based on the evidence given by Mr Suleiman, he threw Mr Mogotsi under the bus and that Mr Suleiman was lying.

“The evidence leader asked him to get anything against Suleiman and he will help. And that Mr Suleiman had implicated him and that he should find a way to defend himself. And further that Mr Suleiman was lying.”

Mr Mogotsi accused the evidence leader of suggesting improper action and fabricating evidence against him.

“Mr Mogotsi that he should do something improper, he says, that I could never ever do.”

The evidence leader may have failed to investigate allegations concerning crime intelligence involving property transactions, informant issues and procurement irregularities, resulting in suspicions of bias against Mr Mogotsi.

“this is an application to recuse Mr Chaskalson by the evidence leader to pursue his allegation that crime intelligence has bought properties, crime intelligence transactions. His evidence about the Section 252(A) operations, informant-related issues, and procurement irregularities is the case being made that Mr Chaskalson has failed to investigate those, and that failure has created an apprehension that he is biased against Mr Mogotsi.”

The attorney acting on behalf of the second respondent goes beyond the scope of institutional representation by making factual averments defending the first respondent (the evidence leader) regarding private communications between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader.

“The attorney goes beyond the scope of the institutionalised institutional representation and purports to make factual averments on behalf of the first respondent, defend the personal conduct, intentions, and state of mind of the first respondent, who is the evidence leader, and they respond to allegations concerning private communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader.”

The affidavit submitted by the attorney for the Commission lacks locus standi and should not be considered valuable or beneficial as it refers to private communications between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader, which are matters for the evidence leader to answer, not the attorney.

“I am inviting the Commission to find that when it comes to the affidavit that was deposed to by the attorney for the Commission, that the Commission finds that that affidavit does not enjoy locus standi. The issues that are contained in that affidavit and the comments cannot be of any value or any benefit because it is comments that they know nothing about. It is personal communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader, and it is issues that the evidence leader should be answering and not the attorney.”

Mr Mogotsi admitted deleting a WhatsApp message dated 11th March at 11:29 am, asserting the deletion was not intended to mislead the Commission.

“Mr Mogotsi is ays that he admits that he deleted the message dated the 11th of March that was sent at 11:29 a.m. And the intention was not to mislead the Commission”

Mr Mogotsi stated that he deleted calls from his phone because he did not find them relevant during screenshotting for the application before the Commission.

“He admits that he deleted the calls on the basis that at the time of taking the screenshots for purposes of this application, he did not find them relevant. And furthermore, he is further to allow me to take screenshots of the relevant facts. Therefore deleted them.”

There was communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader about Mr Carrim, involving discussions to defend Mr Mogotsi and possibly discredit Mr Carrim.

“there was communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader. And during those conversations, a discussion came in regard to Mr Carrim... regarding Mr Mogotsi to defend himself and, if the need arises, to throw Mr Carrim under the bus.”

The communication between Mr Mogotsi and Mr Carrim gave an impression of cooperation in providing information against another witness, which may undermine the appearance of impartiality.

“the communication between himself and Mr Carrim formed an impression that this cooperation in providing information against another witness was linked to his treatment in the proceedings. Whether intended or not, such perception undermines the appearance of impartiality.”

Mr Mogotsi became fearful of appearances of impartiality and being treated unfairly in the proceedings.

“he became fearful of appearances of impartiality and that he would, upon his appearance, be treated unfairly.”

There is a dispute over the contents of phone calls between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader, with no record of what was discussed, making it difficult to assess the reasonableness of apprehensions of bias.

“I do not know what was contained in the telephone calls... you would also not be in a position to know what was discussed in those telephone conversations... there is no recorded conversation...”

Mr Mogotsi was labelled a liar, casting doubt on his credibility.

“He is labelled as a liar... Now if he approaches you, this liar, and he says I have got information, why would you be interested in information? He might be lying to you.”

The WhatsApp chat screenshots presented were constructed to appear as a genuine and complete set, while in fact concealing material deleted texts and calls, creating a misleading appearance.

“It is made to appear as a genuine and complete set of screenshots with the default WhatsApp speech bubble colours and with the default WhatsApp wallpaper. It, in other words, conceals that material texts and calls have been deleted... This is deliberately deceptive. This was misleading to the Commission.”

Mr Mogotsi admitted deleting WhatsApp messages dated 12 March 11:29 to protect the conversation from unnamed third persons but did not explain why emojis sent on 01 March were also deleted.

“He admits to deleting the message of 12 March at 11:29 ... He says that: "This deletion was made to protect the conversation from unnamed third persons." He does not explain at all why he deleted those emojis sent on 01 March at 01:18 in the afternoon.”

Mr Mogotsi admitted to deleting six calls to Mr Chaskalson on 9 and 10 March during Mr Carrim's evidence but claimed the calls were not relevant.

“What he deleted were 6 calls to Mr Chaskalson, which Mr Chaskalson declined to answer. Three calls on the 9th of March, the day on which Mr Carrim first began his evidence, and 3 further calls during the lunch adjournment of Mr Carrim's testimony... He admits to curating the WhatsApp account, the WhatsApp record rather, selecting what he considered to be relevant.”

Mr Carrim sought to blame Mr Mogotsi for what was conveyed to Mr Matlala in WhatsApp communications, accusing Mr Mogotsi of blaming him for everything.

“Mr Carrim sought to blame Mr Mogotsi for what he was conveying to Mr Matlala... Mr Mogotsi conveyed his concern that Mr Carrim had been blaming him for everything.”

Mr Mogotsi repeatedly called Mr Chaskalson on the night of 9 March seeking protection from being falsely blamed and trying to provide evidence against Mr Carrim including about the Medicare4 contract.

“Mr Mogotsi then called three more times that night. Mr Chaskalson says... that Mr Mogotsi conveyed his concern that Mr Carrim had been blaming him for everything... Mr Mogotsi offered evidence against Mr Carrim, as well as further evidence relating to the Medicare4 contract that was also a subject of debate with Mr Carrim.”

Mr Chaskalson agreed to meet Mr Mogotsi to prepare evidence for the Commission, but Mr Mogotsi did not show up to scheduled meetings and calls remained unanswered.

“Mr Chaskalson agreed to go through the meeting... Mr Mogotsi does not show up to the meeting at 10 o'clock and he does not give any indication that he is not going to show up... They then agreed that they will meet at 2 o'clock and again, Mr Mogotsi does not show up and does not answer his phone.”

Mr Mogotsi alleges that Mr Chaskalson treated him unfairly during prior testimony and that Mr Chaskalson induced him to give false evidence against another witness before the Commission, which are very grave allegations.

“First, Mr Mogotsi says that Mr Chaskalson treated him unfairly when he previously testified before this Commission in the manner in which Mr Chaskalson questioned him. Second, he makes what we say is a very, very grave allegation that Mr Chaskalson induced him to give evidence and to give false evidence against another witness before this Commission.”

Mr Chaskalson's affidavit thoroughly denies the allegations by Mr Mogotsi and is supported by WhatsApp records comparing communications relevant to the allegations.

“The answering affidavit is more than a denial, and I will call it an answering affidavit, Mr Chaskalson's affidavit. That affidavit is more than a denial. It is a detailed factual account supported by the true WhatsApp record annexed as MC1 and a marked-up comparison annexed as MC2, which identifies the communications which Mr Mogotsi removed from his annexure, and his annexure is marked OBM2.”

Mr Mogotsi admits to manipulating WhatsApp exchanges with Mr Chaskalson before submitting them to the Commission but does not admit that he exerted improper pressure on Mr Chaskalson.

“He admits to manipulating the WhatsApp exchanges between himself and Mr Chaskalson before placing the record before the Commission. He does not use the word manipulating. He tries to explain it in several ways, but he admits to making several deletions.”

Mr Chaskalson categorically denies inviting Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim or suggesting he find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim and then protect him from adverse findings.

“He concludes at paragraph 23 with his categorical denials that he invited Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim, or that he suggested that if Mr Mogotsi could find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim, that he would then protect him from adverse findings.”

Mr Mogotsi is complaining now about leads that were not pursued, but there was no complaint at the time the events occurred.

“the degree to which Mr Mogotsi is complaining now about it, that if it was that serious at the time, that there would have been a complaint at the time. There was not.”

There was thorough questioning and probing of the Section 252 investigation during Mr Mogotsi's evidence, and the related crime intelligence procurement information is addressed fully in the affidavit.

“the Section 252 investigation was thoroughly questioned and probed during Mr Mogotsi's evidence, and we have attached the transcript, which is why this is bulkier than it should be ...”

Mr Mogotsi must show how not dealing with certain leads impacts the retention of the evidence leader with a result that there would be substantive unfairness; no such attempt has been made.

“That is what Mr Mogotsi would have to show, and I am not aware that there has been any attempt to show that at all with regard to those leads.”

Mr Mogotsi's WhatsApp record is materially incomplete and he admitted deleting material from it; this should be investigated for possible perjury, forgery, and contraventions of the Commission's Act and Regulations.

“Mr Mogotsi placed before the Commission a materially incomplete WhatsApp record and admitted to deleting material from it. He should, therefore, be referred to investigation, for investigation, for possible perjury, forgery, and contraventions of Section 5 of the Commission's Act, and Regulation 12 (1) of this Commission's Regulations.”

The timing of Mr Mogotsi's application matters; complaints of reasonable apprehension of bias should be made at the earliest possible stage to protect the Commission's proceedings from delays and obstructions.

“The timing of the application does matter ... complaints of reasonable apprehension of bias should be made at the earliest possible stage ... it is about protecting the Commission's resources, time, and its proceedings ... this application is just another stratagem to manufacture further objections, to secure further postponements, and to ultimately avoid testifying before the Commission.”

Mr Chaskalson and Mr Mogotsi had discussions prior to 9 March 2026, but the entire WhatsApp conversation between them has not been provided to the Commission.

“Mr Chaskalson has not brought the entire conversation between himself and Mr Mogotsi ... it is evident that there has been some discussions prior to the one of the 9th.”

Mr Mogotsi has not shown that the continued involvement of the evidence leader would cause substantive unfairness in the Commission's work.

“Mr Mogotsi has not shown that .”

Mr Mogotsi frequently missed appointments, disrupting the schedules of the evidence leader and investigators, causing frustration as explained by Mr Chaskalson.

“Mr Mogotsi's missing appointments was continually missing these appointments and disrupting the schedules of the evidence leader and the investigators”

Mr Mogotsi initiated conversations with Mr Chaskalson seeking assistance to avoid being used as a scapegoat, expressing concern about Mr Carrim's blame.

“Mr Mogotsi pursued Mr Chaskalson. He initiated the conversations. He says he was concerned that Mr Carrim was throwing him under the bus. He sought assistance to avoid being used as a scapegoat”

Mr Mogotsi offered to provide evidence against Mr Carrim and the Medicare24 contract, but also peddled falsehoods to Mr Chaskalson to try to postpone Mr Carrim's testimony.

“He then offered to provide evidence against Mr Carrim and the Medicare24 contract. But what is more, as we now know, he was also peddling falsehoods to Mr Chaskalson ... in order to precipitate a postponement of Mr Carrim's evidence”

Mr Mogotsi admitted to telling Mr Chaskalson that a meeting between himself, Morgan Maumela and Suleiman took place in the North West, which was false and intended to postpone Suleiman's testimony.

“Mr Mogotsi admits that he told Mr Chaskalson that this meeting took place, this meeting in the North West. He admits that. And then he adds this following startling addition to his affidavit ... I deliberately mentioned it to prompt a postponement of Suleiman's testimony”

Mr Mogotsi deliberately gave false evidence to secure postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony, which is a serious dishonest manipulation of the Commission process.

“He deliberately gave false evidence to secure the postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony. That admission is serious because it does not only suggest dishonesty, but it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the evidence leader and this Commission's process”

Mr Mogotsi's conduct and the forged WhatsApp record should be investigated as a possible offence under the Commission's Act and Regulation.

“Mr Mogotsi's conduct, and it is for that reason, that we say that Mr Mogotsi's conduct, in addition to the forged WhatsApp record, his conduct should be investigated as a possible offence under the Section 5 of the Commission's Act and Regulation”

Mr Chaskalson vigorously questioned Mr Mogotsi and accused him of dishonesty during the Commission inquiry, which is not unfair due to the inquisitorial nature of the Commission.

“Mr Chaskalson questioned him vigorously and did say to him that he was being dishonest. That is true... But that is not unfair because a Commission is inquisitorial”

Mr Mogotsi was legally represented during his November 2025 testimony and his legal representatives did not object to the vigorous questioning he now complains about.

“When Mr Mogotsi testified then, he was legally represented. His legal representatives did not object to the questions... The complaint is only raised later when the witness is due to return to the witness box”

Mr Mogotsi deliberately lied about a meeting with Maumela and Suleimani that never took place to engineer a postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony.

“he lied when he said there was such a meeting ... I did this deliberately to encourage him to postpone Suleiman's testimony”

Mr Mogotsi was concerned about the Commission's treatment of him and its focus on issues outside its mandate, which motivated his attempt to engineer a postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony.

“He was concerned about the Commission's treatment and the focus on issues outside its mandate”

Mr Mogotsi intentionally misled the evidence leader to engineer a postponement of a witness who was giving evidence.

“why would he mislead the evidence leader about a meeting that never took place and say under oath that he did so in order to engineer the postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony”

The witness (Mr Mogotsi) will say or do anything based on what he wants regardless of its truthfulness or lack thereof.

“So, we are dealing with a witness who will say or do anything based on what he wants ... regardless of its truthfulness or lack of it”

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.”

Mr Mogotsi wishes to bring a review application in light of the outcome of the recusal application.

“in light of the outcome of the recusal application, Mr Mogotsi wishes to bring a review application.”

Mr Mogotsi states he does not want to incriminate himself by answering whether he met General Sibiya before January 8th event, denying that the first time he met General Sibiya was on January 8th in Cape Town.

“Ja, to all the answers, I am not going to incriminate myself and forward, Chair.”

Mr Mogotsi invoked his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination when asked how his meeting with General Sibiya before January 8th incriminated him.

“To rather invoke my right to remain silent.”

Chairperson noted that under Section 6 of the Commission's Act and Regulation 8(1), a witness who refuses to answer questions lawfully put to them after being sworn in commits an offence, and questioned Mr Mogotsi's claim of self-incrimination as he did not clarify how the answer incriminated him or what crime was referred to.

“thesection, I think it is Section 6 of the Commission's Act and there is also, is it Regulation 8(1)... both create an offence if a witness that has been sworn in fails to answer fully and satisfactorily any question lawfully put to them.”

Mr Mogotsi insists on his stance to not incriminate himself and take legal advice despite understanding the Rules as a layman.

“That is my posture, Chair. That is my posture. I have gone through those rules and as a layman... perhaps my legal team will talk to that, but I am not going to incriminate myself.”

Adv. Chaskalson SC suggests Mr Mogotsi should take legal advice about the refusal to answer questions based on fear of self-incrimination, which may lead to referral for prosecution under relevant Act provisions.

“it is possibly appropriate for Mr Mogotsi to take some legal advice on this, because certainly the attitude of the Evidence Leader is that subject to any plausible reason for a fear of self-incrimination, the Evidence Leaders would want a refusal to answer questions to be followed by a referral for prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Act.”

Mr Mogotsi complained about being interrupted multiple times during proceedings including when his counsel tried to read case law into record; he states he was declared a liar previously and is unhappy with the proceedings including the recusal application process.

“I have noticed the proceedings, including when my Counsel speaks, she got interrupted more than ten times... when my Counsel tried to read one case law into record, it was that no, we know it... I was declared a liar... I want to say I am very much unhappy with the proceedings.”

Mr. Mogotsi has voluntarily made himself available to the Commission and gave evidence without being summoned, but he will not answer questions specifically regarding General Sibiya to avoid self-incrimination.

“Mr Mogotsi has voluntarily made himself available to the Commission, and he gave evidence without being summoned to come. It is not a refusal to answer questions specifically with regards to General Sibiya. His response thereto is that he will not incriminate himself any further, thus will not answer the question.”

Mr. Mogotsi will respond to all questions and will not put a blanket refusal; however, if a question may incriminate him, he claims he is entitled to self-incrimination privilege.

“I will sit here and wait for all the questions. I will respond to each and every question, as I said. If a question is posed, I am not refusing. If I say I do not want to incriminate myself, I am answering. I am aware of the repercussions as I will be in contempt with the Commission. I am saying a self-incriminatory kind of environment, I believe I should be given an opportunity to do that. I will wait for every question. I will respond. I will not say I put a blanket to all the questions. As they come, I will respond.”

The person in charge of maintaining the records of undercover agents in the SAPS Criminal Intelligence Division denies that Mr. Mogotsi was ever an undercover agent.

“So, the person charged with maintaining all of the records of undercover agents in the South African Police Service Criminal Intelligence Division denies that you were ever an undercover agent.”

Mr. Mogotsi responds that the person denying he was an undercover agent only got appointed in 2024, and he refuses to implicate himself as they never met.

“This person only got appointed in 2024. I know how he got appointed. I know where he used to work. He can never know me, therefore, I will not want to implicate myself.”

Mr. Mogotsi asserts privilege against self-incrimination and intends to give that answer to all questions, including whether he was acting as an agent.

“Yes, that is correct. That is the answer I am going to give to all the questions, by the way.”

Mr Mogotsi was an informant for a brief period in 2001 according to Crime Intelligence records, but there is no record of him being an informant after that period.

“The Colonel responsible for administering Crime Intelligence records of all informants says you were an informant for a brief period in 2001, but there is no record of you being an informant ever after.”

Mr Mogotsi does not want to incriminate himself regarding his role as an informant or contact agent.

“I do not want to incriminate myself.”

A person described as Mr Mogotsi's co-handler confirms awareness that Mr Mogotsi was being run as an informant but emphasizes he was never an agent, only an informant.

“He does confirm that you were being run as an informant. He, however, was emphatic that you were never an agent, only an informant.”

Mr Mogotsi described himself as a contact agent in his affidavit, but the person he referred to as his co-handler denies such a role exists.

“In your affidavit you described yourself as a contact agent. The person who you referred to as your co-handler says there is no such thing as a contact agent.”

Mr Mogotsi and the co-handler were acquaintances outside SAPS work from Soweto.

“That you and he were homeboys from Soweto and knew each other outside SAPS work.”

Mr Mogotsi's handler was Warrant Officer Mabizela (also referred to as Mabuzela), but Mr Mogotsi denies incriminating himself.

“In your statement you say that your handler was Warrant Officer Mabizela.”

The person described as Mr Mogotsi's co-handler denies that Warrant Officer Mabizela was his handler, stating it was Warrant Officer Mabuza.

“The man who you describe as your co-handler was adamant that you were never handled by Warrant Officer Mabizela, only by Warrant Officer Mabuza.”

Colonel Duma was involved as the supervisor of Warrant Officer Mabuza from the very first meeting with Mr Mogotsi's co-handler.

“Colonel Duma was involved as the supervisor of your handler, Warrant Officer Mabuza, right from your first alleged meeting with the man you describe as your co-handler.”

Mr Mogotsi did not mention Colonel Duma in his statement and refused to implicate himself about this omission.

“Can you explain why there is no mention of Colonel Duma in your statement? I am not going to implicate myself.”

Mr Mogotsi insists on not incriminating himself about Colonel Duma or others involved.

“I am not going to implicate myself.”

Mr Mogotsi says Mabuzela and Mabuza are almost the same name and refer to one person, but he refuses to implicate himself.

“Mabuza and Mabuzela is almost the same name. It is, they refer to one person, but let me not implicate myself.”

Mr Mogotsi's co-handler introduced him with Colonel Duma, Warrant Officer, and Warrant Officer Mabuza to General Sibiya.

“The person who was your co-handler said he introduced you with Colonel Duma, Warrant Officer, and Warrant Officer Mabuza to General Sibiya.”

General Mfazi, who Mr Mogotsi says was the first person to whom his handler reported, is also deceased.

“General Mfazi, who you say in your statement is the first person to whom your handler reported, has also passed away.”

All of the people named by Mr Mogotsi as involved in his Crime Intelligence operations are deceased.

“All of them, but let me not incriminate myself, Chair.”

Mr Mogotsi asserts that every claim he made with evidence was not corroborated until now and that the narrative aimed to prove he is a liar.

“the narrative was to prove that I am a liar. Everyone, they know I am a liar. None of the things that I submitted or anything that I wanted to have been corroborated were never entertained till today.”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to incriminate himself by reporting his discoveries to General Sibiya or General Khan or revealing sources of evidence.

“I am not going to incriminate myself for General Sibiya.”

Mr Mogotsi claims he does not know General Khan and never worked with him, refusing to incriminate himself regarding discoveries related to him.

“I do not know General Khan. I never worked with General Khan and I am not going to incriminate myself.”

Mr Mogotsi repeatedly refuses to incriminate himself when questioned about documents and evidence related to irregular property purchased by Crime Intelligence.

“I am not going to incriminate myself, Chair.”

Mr Mogotsi says all names he provided have been departmental charged and many individuals mentioned have been caught except an informant and investigating officer of the informant who he says was killed.

“Even if I was prepared to incriminate myself, all the names I have given you, even one man is in hospital, has been departmentally charged. Every person I mentioned here... the informant ... the investigating officer of the informant ... he was killed.”

Mr Mogotsi repeatedly refuses to incriminate himself regarding a salary record and other confidential documents he sent to Mr Matlala.

“I am not going to incriminate myself, Chair.”

Mr Mogotsi confirms that the screenshot he sent to Mr Matlala shows the business that used to reside at the property purchased by Crime Intelligence.

“That is correct.”

Mr Mogotsi insists he can provide the name of the person who has receipts and proof of payments for the alleged illegal purchases but refuses to incriminate himself in the process.

“I can give you the name of the person who has receipts, proof of payments ... but maybe that is what should be asked so that we can give to you. All these ones it is just to incriminate myself.”

Adv Hassim urges Mr Mogotsi to provide information on documents relating to criminal cases against General Khumalo and his co-accused, which Mr Mogotsi denies being charged for yet.

“All of these documents that we are talking about now, are documents relating to the two criminal cases against General Khumalo and his co-accused. ... No, not yet charged for that. It is only charged for an appointment of a BMW man.”

Mr Mogotsi asserts that General Khumalo or Masemola were never subjected to harsh questioning like General Sibiya or others.

“even when General Khumalo or Masemola were here, they would never be subjected to this harsh questioning like you do on General Sibiya or others.”

General Khumalo was arrested in relation to the illegal appointment of a Crime Intelligence Brigadier, not because of the illegal use of Crime Intelligence funds or properties.

“The arrest of General Khumalo and the other Generals it has nothing to do with the property. They were arrested for the appointment of a Brigadier.”

Mr Mogotsi is reluctant to provide information publicly to avoid self-incrimination, suggesting he prefers to give information through lawyers.

“I am not declining. I am saying for now, to come here in public and mention those things does not help. I could rather give that to the lawyers and the person who have the papers, payment, proof of payment, who can prove.”

Mr Mogotsi fears that providing certain information or names publicly could lead to his self-incrimination and possible prosecution.

“I may be incriminated. He may be called here. He can apply for my cross-examination and I will be incriminated, definitely.”

Mr Mogotsi states he does not want to be prosecuted and is aware that self-incrimination relates to criminal prosecution.

“I do not want to be prosecuted, but this one I do not know. I know nothing and I do not...”

Mr Mogotsi claims that he only recently learned about a person involved in the appointment of a Brigadier from a WhatsApp message, and does not know the full name or current contact details due to his phones being taken by police.

“I only knew this person as this is written, and remember my phones were taken by the police, so I am not having those old numbers any more.”

Mr Mogotsi fears being perceived as untrustworthy or a liar, which hinders his ability to get information about the person named on WhatsApp related to the appointment of a Brigadier.

“...And now no one trusts me, remember I am a liar now.”

Mr Mogotsi does not know the real name or surname of 'John' referenced in a WhatsApp message and cannot identify him as he no longer has his phone which was taken by the police.

“this message I think was forwarded to me because the language written here, there is no way he and me can speak in this language ... I do not know if his numbers ... I cannot find this John”

Mr Mogotsi's phone, which contained contact information for 'John', was taken by the police and he can no longer provide any identifying information about John.

“It was taken by the police ... So you do not have your phone anymore so you cannot tell me who John is”

Mr Mogotsi indicates he has only had the number of John in his phone but does not know John’s full name or surname.

“John was in my phone. I do not know his surname. So if you say I should go and look for him, I cannot find him”

Mr Mogotsi offered to assist the process of identifying names and numbers in his possession through his lawyers but currently does not know who John is and has no phone containing those contacts.

“if there is anything which perhaps Senior Counsel may want to be, if it can be done with my lawyers ... I did talk about the names, I am ready ... I can get the lawyers to even submit them to Senior Counsel ... At this juncture, he does not know who John is, he does not have his phone”

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”

Mr Mogotsi says he cannot write texts in Afrikaans and thus could not have sent certain messages in that language attributed to him.

“I cannot write this language ... I cannot text in Afrikaans ... I am not good in Afrikaans”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to incriminate himself repeatedly in response to questions about his conduct regarding sharing screenshots and information with Mr Matlala.

“Let me not incriminate myself, Chair”

Mr Mogotsi shared screenshots purportedly showing properties purchased with state money by Crime Intelligence and details of someone illicitly appointed by Crime Intelligence with Mr Matlala.

“I have shared with him a whole range of properties illegally bought by Crime Intelligence and details of someone illegally appointed by Crime Intelligence”

Mr Mogotsi says his co-handler, Brigadier Duma, was aware of his investigation into Mr Matlala and the related document sharing, contrary to claims that the co-handler was unaware.

“Brigadier Duma, who was senior to this co-handler, is the one who knew what I was doing. Even the notice for investigation went to Duma”

Mr Mogotsi admits his first meeting with Mr Matlala was on December 7, 2024, a day after the raid on Mr Matlala's house on December 6, 2024.

“your first meeting with Mr Matlala was on 7 December 2024 ... The raid was on the 6th of December”

Mr Mogotsi met with Cat on 7th December, a day after a raid on Mr Matlala.

“I met Cat on the 7th of December.”

Mr Mogotsi activated his handler, initially named Mabizela but later called Mabuza, to arrange for Mr Matlala to open a criminal case at SAPS Soweto on 7th December.

“you met him on the 7th and on the same day, we see in paragraph 33, that you activate your handler, who you say is Mabizela, but now you say is Mabuza, to arrange for Matlala to open a criminal case at SAPS in Soweto.”

Mr Mogotsi stands by the statement that his co-handler arranged for the opening of the docket for Mr Matlala.

“I stand by that.”

Mr Mogotsi said the request to open the docket came directly from him, not from the handler Mabizela or Mabuza, though he may have called both.

“your co-handler said that the request came straight from you, not from Mabizela or Mabuza, the request to open a docket for this person.”

Mr Mogotsi acknowledged his co-handler was unaware at the time that Mr Matlala was under investigation.

“Your co-handler also said that at that stage he was unaware that you were investigating Mr Matlala.”

Mr Mogotsi denied commenting on poor intelligence practice regarding Mr Matlala's contact with his investigation supervisor.

“I have no comment. That is what he is clear about.”

Mr Mogotsi gave Mr Matlala the name and ID number of his co-handler to enable purchasing a plane ticket, despite risks.

“you also gave him his ID number ... when you wanted Mr Matlala to pay for your co-handler’s ticket”

Mr Mogotsi admitted interest in General Khumalo, confirming a communication with General Mkhwanazi in September by WhatsApp as an opening gambit.

“you sent him WhatsApp’s ... My General, Brown Mogotsi from the North West. An internal attempt to discredit you through defeating the ends case.”

General Khumalo responded to Mr Mogotsi’s WhatsApp by questioning what case was being defeated and who was behind it and asked for the Empangeni occurrence book record.

“General responds ... what defeating case are you referring to and who is behind it?”

Mr Mogotsi replied to General Khumalo identifying General Khumalo as behind the attempt to discredit him, referencing a complainant who pushed a negative narrative about Khumalo on CIT in KZN.

“you answer his question ... General Khumalo, Div Com, just check your standing with him. Yesterday, he pushed a negative narrative about you on the CIT’s in KZN.”

Mr Mogotsi claims that calls/messages to General Mkhwanazi or any General in the province typically do not receive responses unless the message is what the General wants to hear.

“Logically, anyone here, if you can pick up a phone and send a message to General Mkhwanazi or any General in the province, he will not respond ... he will not respond to those things if you do not tell him what he wants to hear.”

Mr Mogotsi admits he has access to a Crime Intelligence briefing and was able to give a screenshot to General Mkhwanazi.

“You clearly had access to a Crime Intelligence briefing and you gave him a screenshot.”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to disclose the name of the source who gave him the Crime Intelligence cover page, fearing self-incrimination and danger to the source and their family.

“If by giving the name, you have exposed that you have committed an offence, then you do not have to ... I do not want to incriminate myself ... There is life and there are families who are still alive ... you really put their families in danger.”

Chairperson instructs Mr Mogotsi to provide the name of the source confidentially as it relates to evidence and is not self-incrimination.

“The witness is compelled to give evidence ... if the issue is not divulging it openly, you can write it down and give it to us ... It has nothing to do with self-incrimination.”

Mr Mogotsi is compelled to write down the name of the source and give it to the commission but reiterates concern about safety and self-incrimination.

“I will write it down ... I will talk to my lawyer ... if questions are posed when there are predictions, Chair, please protect me ... It is the only one who had access ...”

Mr Mogotsi admits that he met Brigadier Duma at his office and at Bryanstown several times, mainly around 2024-2025.

“Yes . . . we met . . . at his office . . . also sometime there . . . long time ago . . . 2024, 2025”

Mr Mogotsi denies that the screenshot he received was connected to the person who passed away and clarifies multiple events happened.

“No . . . I am saying there is a lot that is happening, Commissioner”

Mr Mogotsi admits that he never met Brigadier Duma in a way to provide extrinsic evidence and that people do not take pictures when they meet under these secretive conditions.

“I do not know what kind of evidence you want . . . you cannot say hey I was with this man then you take pictures”

Mr Mogotsi admits he met Brigadier Duma and his co-handler but denies frequent meetings at Bryanstown and refuses to incriminate himself.

“I met with Brigadier Duma and co-handler . . . but I cannot answer that question . . . I will not incriminate myself”

Mr Mogotsi admits there was an OB entry about a correctional officer arrested with drugs which he said to General Mkhwanazi was true.

“It was not false . . . there was an OB entry . . . a correctional officer was arrested with drugs”

Mr Mogotsi admits he never met the complainant in the Empangeni prison case and that it never happened.

“No . . . that is true . . . it never happened”

Mr Mogotsi admits that he made a false statement about General Khumalo speaking with the complainant and that General Khumalo never spoke about him in the meeting, as he was not there.

“That is a false lie. That is something that I made. They never spoke. General Khumalo never spoke about him in the meeting. I was not there at all.”

Mr Mogotsi had a handler who knew when he was talking to General Mkhwanazi and was aware he would relay certain information.

“My handler knew when I started talking to General Mkhwanazi. My handler knew.”

Mr Mogotsi denies that his handler knew he would lie to General Mkhwanazi about General Khumalo meeting with the complainant to set him up and defeat an ends case against him.

“No, obviously, where the information of this nature comes, wherever, from the name where I showed you...”

Mr Mogotsi says he is not going to incriminate himself about telling lies to General Mkhwanazi or about statements regarding General Khumalo pushing a negative narrative and suggesting General Mkhwanazi had his own cartel.

“I am not going to incriminate myself on that one.”

Mr Mogotsi apologised and retracted an allegation suggesting General Mkhwanazi may have been linked to the CIA due to lack of tangible evidence.

“I did apologise. I can apologise again. And retracted that since I do not have tangible evidence, I should retract it, and that is what I have done.”

Mr Mogotsi denies that he was happy to tell a series of lies intended to interfere with the relationship between General Mkhwanazi and General Khumalo.

“No. No, let me not incriminate myself.”

Mr Mogotsi says his co-handler, who is now deceased, knew about the lies planning and was involved.

“The same person I wrote on the book. A dead person. Let me, I have agreed, I have accepted that they have passed on.”

Mr Mogotsi admits he attempted to get members of the PKTT, or who he thought were members, arrested for a raid at Mr Matlala's house, but denies opening the cases himself and says the raid made the members targets.

“I thought so. I cannot hear the question. ... I did not open the case for them. I did not do it. ... To help someone open a case is not to target any person. He became the target.”

Mr Mogotsi denies remembering any other case that he tried to open targeting someone else while working in Crime Intelligence, saying operations were not about opening cases.

“I cannot remember.”

Mr Mogotsi states that the person assaulted in the raid and whose wife was assaulted had a case opened for them by his co-handler, not Mr Mogotsi himself.

“If like this member of Parliament when he came to Soweto, I was not part of that. I did not know how that happened. But if I also referred him to someone would that means my job is to help people open cases.”

Mr Mogotsi alleges that no one is concerned about why certain people travel long distances to open cases from their area of origin because cases cannot be opened there, referencing an incident where a magistrate recused himself due to attacks by General Mkhwanazi on the presiding officer who imposed bail conditions.

“no one is concerned that why these people are traveling for this so long distance to open cases , because where they come from , cases cannot be opened . When you gave an example earlier , Chair , about the arrest of those Generals , on the 6th of July when General Mkhwanazi spoke , if you could remember how he attacked the presiding officer who imposed those bail conditions . That magistrate also even recused himself from that case .”

Mr Mogotsi admits he has never opened a case himself.

“No .”

Mr Mogotsi assisted the opening of a case on 7 December, the day after the raid, and started communicating with the Minister about getting an IPID arrest related to that case.

“So you did that , you assisted the opening of the case on the 7th of December , the day after the raid . You then started communicating with the Minister about getting an IPID arrest . Do you recall that ?”

Mr Mogotsi confirms attempts to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi, to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala, to involve IPID in an arrest arising from the raid, and an attempt to persuade the Minister that General Sibiya and Discipline General Khumalo are involved in a Constitutional Court judgment matter (Makala case).

“So , we have talked about your attempt to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi , your attempt to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala , your attempt to get IPID involved in an arrest arising out of the raid on Mr Matlala 's house . ... Your fourth , the fourth instance is your attempt to persuade the Minister that he or General Sibiya and discipline General Khumalo arising out the Constitutional Court judgment in the Makala case .”

Mr Mogotsi confirms he was involved in an attempt (section 252A) to get information on what a certain man was saying about the hearing, not to have General Khumalo charged with defeating the ends of justice, and denies wanting to bribe anyone to change their version to implicate General Khan.

“I remember that he only had to prove that there was a plot to have General Khandi missed , not the part that General Khumalo should be charged with defeating . ... No , the purpose was to get information on what that man was saying about the hearing . ... But the word that I wanted to bribe him is not true . I never bribed him .”

Mr Mogotsi denies persuading a Colonel to change his story regarding General Khumalo to implicate General Khan, stating the Colonel came and said the things himself.

“No , I did not persuade . I did not even know that he was going to do that thing . He came and said all those things himself .”

Mr Mogotsi admits to sending a Signal message to Mr Matlala on 30 January which involved coordination about General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi matters with Deputy National Commissioner Sibiya and Chief of Staff Nkabinde, indicating targeting of General Khumalo.

“Yes , this is what was also dealt with previously . ... Also meeting with the DNC and COS today , in other words , with Deputy National Commissioner Sibiya and Chief of Staff Nkabinde today in Durban for finalization of Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi 's matters . ... That looks like a sixth instance of your targeting General Khumalo .”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to incriminate himself in relation to the investigation of Mr Matlala.

“No , I am not going to incriminate myself .”

Mr Mogotsi confirms knowing Mr Matlala since at least the North West tender case when his foundation, funded by Mr Carrim, brought a matter to stop a tender awarded to someone else.

“Ja , we also dealt about it last time . ... Yes , that was September 2023 , August , September 2023 .”

Mr Mogotsi confirms he publicly stated on TV that Mr Matlala assisted him in relation to an interdict application in September 2023.

“What I said on TV , that is correct .”

Mr Mogotsi was aware in March or April 2025 about the need to investigate a SAPS tender awarded to Mr Matlala through a company Medicare 24 with links to former Minister Bheki Cele.

“You found out about the possible need to investigate his tender with SAPS according to your statement in March , April 2024 . ... That is the statement . ... 2025 . ... So you found out about the need to investigate the tender in March , April 2025 .”

Mr Carrim contacted Mr Mogotsi prior to investing money in Medicare 24 to verify the validity of the tender.

“you were contacted by Mr Carrim prior to his investing money in Medicare 24 and he wanted you to verify if the tender was indeed valid”

Mr Mogotsi confirms he and Mr Carrim were friends but are no longer friends.

“Mr Carrim is your friend, is he not? That is correct. We were friends. You were friends? Ja. No, no not [no longer]”

Mr Mogotsi says he cannot speak on behalf of Mr Carrim regarding payment dates but confirms Mr Carrim wanted to invest.

“what he may have told you and what he has told me, I cannot speak on his behalf. I can only tell you when he spoke to me that he wanted to invest”

It is unclear whether Mr Carrim paid before or after 26 June 2024; Mr Mogotsi does not know the payment timing.

“As to whether he has paid the money before or after, I do not know”

Mr Mogotsi accepts Mr Carrim contacted him prior to investing money in Medicare 24 to verify the validity of the tender.

“Yes, that is on the statement. Yes, that is correct”

Mr Mogotsi cannot recall exact dates of contacting Mr Carrim about the contract and does not want to incriminate himself by guessing.

“I cannot remember ... let me not incriminate myself”

Mr Mogotsi and Mr Carrim kept in touch through 2024 regarding the contract as per Mr Mogotsi's statement, but he cannot answer for Mr Carrim's side.

“Mr Carrim's evidence was that you kept in touch with him or he kept in touch with you right through 2024 ... If what you are asking is in my statement, yes. If it is about Carrim I cannot answer for him”

Mr Mogotsi refused to say whether he could have arranged a meeting between Mr Carrim and Mr Matlala, fearing self-incrimination.

“By saying yes, I could have approached him directly or I could have called him, is to incriminate myself”

Mr Mogotsi says he did not want to meet Mr Matlala or arrange a meeting and had no such intention when asked two years ago by Mr Carrim.

“He is asking me two years back if I wanted. I did not want. He is asking me if I wanted, I could have made them meet and so on. So, I did not want. I had no intention”

Mr Mogotsi says the delay in reaching out to Mr Matlala from March-April to December 2024 was due to waiting for the new administration after the 29 May 2024 elections and the announcement of the new cabinet in June.

“we had to wait for the new administration ... when the ANC parliamentary list came out ... former Minister Bheki Cele did not make it ... new cabinet was announced in June”

Mr Mogotsi confirms he was approached by Mr Carrim before he invested in the contract, in around June 2024.

“Mr Carrim approached you before he invested in the contract, and he invested ... on the 26th of June”

At the time Mr Carrim approached Mr Mogotsi about the contract, the new cabinet was likely already known and General Cele was known to not be Minister of Police.

“By the time Mr Carrim approached you, ... you would certainly have known that General Cele was not going to be Minister of Police”

Mr Mogotsi explained he waited to start investigating the contract until after the new administration was in place, around June 2024.

“I spoke about having to wait for the new administration and so forth ... when the ANC parliamentary list came out ... that is when we realized there is going to be a new Minister ... and we waited”

Mr Mogotsi denies spreading damaging lies about General Khumalo to General Mkhwanazi on 30 September and 1 October.

“No, that is not the case.”

Mr Mogotsi confirms the WhatsApp message from Mr Matlala on 8 January requesting assistance for guests with impala meat.

“And you WhatsApp Mr Matlala on the 8th of January at 20:57 saying: 'Please assist with something for the guests.'”

Mr Mogotsi acknowledges the WhatsApp exchange included a follow-up message referencing 'Impala' and laughing emojis later.

“And he does not get back to you, and two hours later you say: 'Impala?' And then there are some laughing emojis straight after that on the next page.”

Mr Mogotsi denies staying in Mr Matlala's house in Cape Town.

“No.”

Mr Mogotsi says Mr Matlala was staying in Johannesburg and might be coming to Cape Town with some meat.

“Also heard Mr Matlala maybe coming here. He will be able to, he said he have some meat.”

Mr Mogotsi confirmed that the person referred to had a holiday house in Cape Town where they met.

“He had, agree he has a holiday house there.”

Mr Mogotsi sent an Impala emoji to Mr Matlala to show that he could see Mr Matlala was not willing to respond.

“I just sent him to show that I can see he was not willing to respond.”

Mr Mogotsi stated that the matter involving Mr Matlala has been dismissed.

“The matter has been dismissed.”

Mr Mogotsi denies having asked Mr Matlala to fund the Minister and denies that anyone funded Minister Senzo.

“I did not ask him. No one ever funded Minister Senzo, that I know, nobody.”

Mr Matlala volunteered to fund the Minister without being asked by Mr Mogotsi.

“You did not ask, so he volunteered to fund the Minister.”

Mr Mogotsi admits he is not registered as an agent or informant of Crime Intelligence.

“There is no sign of you on the books of Crime Intelligence, you are not registered as an agent, you are not registered as an informant.”

Mr Mogotsi states the registration for his testimony was done manually due to sensitivity and that he does not know the details.

“I was registered for this particular, because the matter was sensitive, we could not be registered, re-registered again. So it was then done manually. I do not know how they do it.”

General Mfazi called Mr Mogotsi initially, but General Sibiya arrived after the elections and took over arrangements.

“He was called by General Mfazi in the first place. General Sibiya came in after the elections. Recently, when we needed another DNC, it is the co-handler who went to talk to him, who arranged all those things, it is not me.”

Mr Mogotsi states he is being questioned about personal details such as his ID and issues unrelated to the inquiry's core focus.

“I am getting to be asked about this, like impala, my ID number, the matter in the North West. We do not deal with the nitty gritties of why do we have this Commission, and that is why I was so willing to come here and say this is what happened.”