Mr Mogashoa

The accused in the chargesheet are Lushaba, Mr Mogashoa, Glenn Hudson, and Eugene Pitout. Pitout and Hudson are members of Crime Intelligence while Mogashoa is a police officer at the station.

“Lushaba , Mr Mogashoa , Glenn Hudson , and one Eugene Pitout . These are the accused . And Pitout and Hudson , I think , are members of Crime Intelligence . Mogashoa is a police officer at the station .”

Investigators questioned how Mogashoa could have commissioned Lushaba's affidavit because Mogashoa had knocked off early that morning and could not have commissioned the affidavit.

“The allegation was that how could he have commissioned Lushaba 's affidavit because apparently on that morning he had knocked off . So our investigators could not understand how he would have commissioned Lushaba 's affidavit .”

Mr Mogashoa has locus standi to depose an affidavit and speak on behalf of the Commission, contra a submission that he lacks locus standi.

“You assert that Mr Mogashoa does have locus standi to depose on behalf of the Commission.”

The evidence of Mr Mogashoa relies entirely on the affidavit of Mr Chaskalson, which means that Mr Mogashoa's affidavit is not hearsay but supported by Mr Chaskalson's primary evidence.

“Mr Mogashoa says, I have read Chaskalson's affidavit, so where I deal with the allegations against Chaskalson, I rely on the affidavit by Chaskalson, which means there is an affidavit by Chaskalson. So, it is not hearsay because that evidence is...”

The allegation that the affidavit of the attorney for the Commission lacks locus standi and is only annexed to Mr Mogashoa’s affidavit is unreasonable and the affidavit should be given weight.

“It is an entirely unreasonable allegation to make that there is no weight to be given to Mr Chaskalson's affidavit because it looks like an annexure and it is not a self-standing affidavit . His position is made very clear .”

There is a dispute about hearsay evidence in the affidavits of Mr Mogashoa and Mr Chaskalson, and whether parts of the affidavits that contain hearsay should be disregarded.

“It is a question of form . ... there is hearsay . ... If we accept that parts of that affidavit , Mr Mogashoa 's affidavit , contain hearsay , can we disregard that hearsay part of evidence and still end up with an affidavit that deals with other issues that are not an answer to the facts of the exchanges between the two ?”