No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
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.”
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 Oupa Brown Mogotsi has brought an application for the recusal of Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC as the Chief Evidence Leader in the proceedings where Mr Mogotsi is a witness.
“this is an application that is being brought by Mr Oupa Brown Mogotsi for the recusal of Matthew Chaskalson SC, who is the Chief Evidence Leader in the proceedings where Mr Mogotsi is witness”
The basis of the application for recusal rests on the possibility of perceived bias or partiality by the Chief Evidence Leader.
“The basis of the application rests on the possibility of biasness or impartiality. And this, Chair, stems from … Perceived bias, Chair.”
Events that took place before the Commission on 9 and 10 March involved communication between the Chief Evidence Leader and Mr Mogotsi in the form of WhatsApp messages related to the recusal application.
“Events that took place before the Commission on the 9th of March and the 10th of March... there was communication between the Evidence Leader and Mr Mogotsi, who is the applicant for the recusal. That communication comes in the form of WhatsApps...”
The applicant Mr Mogotsi contends that the Evidence Leader suggested he could assist and protect him against giving evidence adverse to Mr Carrim Suleiman.
“the applicant in his papers say that the Evidence Leader had suggested that he can be able to assist him, he can be able to protect him in the event that he gives evidence that is adverse against Mr Carrim Suleiman”
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”
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?”
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”