Mr Chaskalson

Mr Chaskalson clarified that the medical certificate has been subject to doubt and the suggestion is for Mr Carrim to undergo an independent examination.

“Mr Chaskalson to simply be making the point that you are not correct to say this medical certificate has no doubt cast on it and all he was saying was we have said he should go for an independent examination...”

If Mr Carrim does not voluntarily avail himself for the medical examination, the commission can only ask for such examination in a non-obligatory way and cannot compel it, thus addressing statutory prescription concerns.

“And if a ruling or directive from the Commission were to direct that Mr Carrim avail himself for such an examination, but be couched in a manner that does not make it obligatory that he do so... bearing in mind the fallback position that Mr Chaskalson has placed before us, in the event that Mr Carrim does not do so, would that take care of your concerns about the statutory prescripts”

Advocate Khumalo references evidence led by Advocate Chaskalson supporting Brown Mogotsi’s statements.

“Advocate Chaskalson was leading the evidence of Brown Mogotsi”

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 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”

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”

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 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 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 Chaskalson denies the contents of the paragraph alleging he solicited evidence against Suleiman from Mr Mogotsi.

“He denies the contents of this paragraph”

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.”

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 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.”

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...”

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 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.”

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 ?”

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 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”

The tender for security services was first advertised in 2016/2017, but actual work only started in 2022 following a court order.

“When it was originally advertised, it was 2016/2017. When it was eventually awarded, it was pursuant to the court order ... But they only started working after they were appointed pursuant to the court order.”

Mr Sekgatja confirms there is an intended application for the recusal of Mr Chaskalson as evidence leader regarding Mr Mogotsi's evidence.

“Yes. Chair, we do confirm that there is an intended application for the recusal of Mr Chaskalson as evidence leader in relation to the evidence of Mr Mogotsi.”

Mr Chaskalson acknowledges he may need permission from the Bar Council, PABASA, and Legal Practice Council to depose to an affidavit.

“It is not only the Bar Council, it is also PABASA and I need to look and see if I need permission from the Legal Practice Council as well. I genuinely do not know at this stage.”

Chairperson confirmed that bids had long been submitted and were ready for evaluation at the time of this request.

“At this stage, the bids had been submitted a long time ago, and as Mr Chaskalson is saying, they were now ready for evaluation.”

Sergeant Nkosi's written statement about returning items to Harley-Davidson can be interpreted irregularly or misleadingly regarding his actual actions.

“Maybe what I am saying there in my statement can be an irregularity in understanding English between me and Mr Chaskalson”

Sergeant Nkosi asserts that many things seen at the scene, such as sneakers and jeans, were misleading and not as shown in evidence, stating that there was nothing square in fashion as portrayed.

“I am just bringing it to the Commission that a lot of things are misleading there, starting with the sneakers and the jeans. So even that what Mr Chaskalson sees there is not what it showed there when I was there. There was nothing that is square in that fashion.”

General Dlamini forwarded a message to Sergeant Nkosi about two vehicles for land and companies relating to a tender, which was then forwarded by Nkosi to Mr Mnisi for verification.

“...on the 9th of March, two days before you forwarded it to Mr Mnisi, he sends you that message.”

Mr Chaskalson stated that the electronic link to all the documents in the bundle was given two weeks ago.

“Electronically. The electronic link to all of the documents in the bundle was given two weeks ago.”

The evidence leaders exercise discretion in selecting which documents out of a large volume are relevant and will share documents if they become relevant during proceedings.

“Mr Chaskalson said of those, he was going to use only 1300 and something pages...they often use their own discretion with regard to what they consider to be relevant...fairness do dictate...the documents should then be shared if and when that arises.”

On 22 January, Mr Chaskalson provided Mr Ngoato with a memory stick containing every chat including hundreds of other chats, and the documents were only bundled for cross-examination two weeks ago.

“On the 22nd of January, we gave Mr Ngoato a memory stick with every chat we have...We did not believe they were going to be relevant until the witness presented certain answers...Everything in the bundle was made available to Mr Ngoato two weeks ago.”

The Commission acknowledges the wrongfulness of the attorney amending files without client counsel present and undertakes it will never happen again.

“There is a concession by Mr Chaskalson that it was wrong for the attorney to have done what they did and there is also an undertaking that it will never happen again.”

An unnamed speaker asserts that Sergeant Nkosi is not being truthful about the reasons he sent the material to Mr Motsumi; the real reason was due to Mr Motsumi's interest in events involving a faction in the SAPS referred to by Mr Chaskalson.

“The only explanation that makes sense, it is because he had an interest in it, and you are not being truthful in your answer.”

Lt-Gen Sibi confirmed he was not the person who sent the WhatsApp message that said 'tjommie' and that Mr Chaskalson apologized to him for the incorrect assertion.

“you are not the person that sent that message that said tjommie, and Mr Chaskalson did tender an apology to you regarding that.”