‘Possibility of fabrication exists’: State and Brown Mogotsi defence at odds over concealing witness details
· Citizen
It was a brief appearance in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court for alleged political fixer Brown Mogotsi, where the state and defence clashed over the handing over of witness names and addresses.
Mogotsi was arrested on 15 May and charged with defeating the ends of justice, perjury, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, as well as discharging a firearm in a public or municipal area.
Visit grenadier.co.za for more information.
His bail appeal was denied last week.
Mogotsi is accused of orchestrating his own attempted assassination on 3 November 2025 in Vosloorus.
On Monday, Mogotsi returned to the court for a pre-trial hearing, where the state indicated it was ready to proceed to trial. However, Mogotsi’s lawyer, Makau Sekgatja, argued against this, saying the state was yet to hand over witness statements.
Witness statements
Sekgatja raised concerns about challenges consulting with his client, saying he could not prepare thoroughly because the state had not provided certain requested statements.
“As far back as 10 July, we requested statements of witnesses and an email was sent to the state requesting the same on 10 July, which was met with a response on 15 July. This particular email attached a letter from our office wherein we were requesting several statements,” Sekgatja told the court.
“Your Worship, these particular statements are very crucial for the purpose of consultation. Now, only this morning before the court actually walked in, the state furnished us with some of the statements which we actually requested. That is unfair to the defence.
“The state cannot now come and say we are ready to set down the matter for trial and ignore the fact that they only gave us some of these particular statements this morning.”
Sekgatja said he had requested 10 statements from the state and had only received six on Monday morning. Even those provided had been redacted where witnesses’ names and addresses appeared, something the defence took issue with.
“I’m still going to go through the email just to check which statements are still outstanding in relation to what we have actually requested. But from the initial email and our request, there were 10 which were requested,” said Sekgatja.
“In particular, there are statements of witnesses that have been redacted by the state.”
Safety of witnesses in Mogotsi case
The state informed the defence that it had redacted the statements for security reasons. However, the defence argued that only a court could order a witness’ identity to be withheld.
“But the state cannot simply come to us and tell us that we are not going to give you the names of these particular witnesses without any specific court order, exercising a discretion which is not based in law. Because our client needs to know who these persons are who are actually saying whatever they are saying against him,” argued Sekgatja.
“And if, perhaps for the purpose of preparing for his trial, he wants to actually do further investigations and prepare adequately for his trial, he needs to know the names of his accusers. Now, if the state is withholding this particular information from the accused person, how then are they expecting that the accused person would be in a position to actually consult with this particular witness?”
Sekgatja argued that the witnesses had never been threatened and that there were no complainants in the case other than witnesses who may have seen the alleged incident.
“Now, what security reasons? The accused person is in custody. Conditions can be, actually, these statements can be made available with conditions that those particular details can stay between the defence and the state. There is no specific threat, Your Worship.”
‘Fabrication’
The state insisted on withholding the personal details of the witnesses, citing security reasons. Previously, the court heard that Mogotsi and his wife, Dorothy Lekhoaba, allegedly tried to persuade a key witness to alter her statement regarding their place of residence.
The witness, Thandiwe Senokwane, opened a case of intimidation against Lekhoaba with the police.
If it happened before, it could happen again, the state argued. It further dismissed assertions that it was refusing to hand over witness statements as “attack statements” by the defence.
“Your Worship, after all, the contents of the docket were handed over to the defence. With regard to painting a picture that it is about 10 statements that are outstanding, that is incorrect. What is outstanding is the names and the personal information which has not been given to the defence,” argued the state.
“Your Worship, the state further submits that it is not correct that the state is in fact delaying the start of this matter. That is not correct. Your Worship, if the Honourable Court is of the view that the state is delaying this matter, the Court may then cause the state to reveal the names of the witnesses. However, that would not be in the interest of justice if those names are included.”
‘Fabrication’
Mogotsi’s lawyer argued that he only sought to verify the identities of the witnesses.
“Verifying these particular persons’ whereabouts on this particular date, whether they were at that particular date and time of the incident and observed what we have indicated in this particular statement.
“The accused person in this matter wants to ensure that whatever has been placed during trial is information or statements of witnesses which are existent and not necessarily being fabricated by the state in order to create a case against him. That is what he wants to investigate. That possibility of a fabrication exists.”
‘Witnesses die’
The judge ordered that the state furnish Mogotsi’s defence with all the requested statements; however, it dismissed the application for witness names.
“The safety of the witnesses is very, very important to this court, you know, and whenever one deals with matters of this nature, one has to be very careful in that the lives of the persons who are to be witnesses are not jeopardised,” said the magistrate.
“The names and the addresses are protected for good reasons because there are cases where persons’ names and addresses have been revealed and the next day we see on the news and we hear that those persons have been eliminated by way of death, been killed, and that’s the most important thing in this court.”
The case was postponed to 20 August 2026.