Mogotsi's defence again raised concerns about redacted statements
Oupa Brown Mogotsi appears at Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on 28 May 2026. Picture: Nigel Sibanda/The Citizen
Alleged political fixer Brown Mogotsi has brought a Section 205 application to access the prosecutor’s evidence against him to prepare for trial.
On Friday, Mogotsi returned to the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court.
He 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.
He is accused of orchestrating his own attempted assassination on 3 November 2025 in Vosloorus.
The court rejected his fourth bail application last month.
His attorney, Nthabiseng Mohomane, said access to the state’s evidence would help her client test it and challenge the credibility, reliability and consistency of the witnesses the state intends to use.
“Without the requested information, the accused will be substantially prejudiced in preparing and presenting his defence,” argued Mohomane.
Mogotsi’s application
Mogotsi’s defence has requested the state to furnish them with cellphone records of the state witnesses who allegedly witnessed the shooting on the day of the incident and the day on which each witness made his or her statement.
“The legal grounds for that, your worship, are that these records are relevant to the assessment of the witnesses’ movements, communications and possible coordination before or after the incident and the making of statements,” said Mohomane.
“The records may assist in testing the reliability and the truthfulness of the witness versions and may reveal material inconsistencies or contents that bear on credibility. The defence is entitled to access material evidence that may assist in the proper testing of the state’s case and the exercise of the accused’s right to a fair trial.”
Mogotsi’s defence also seeks employment records of one of the witnesses.
“The legal grounds for this request are that the information is directly relevant to whether witness A5 was present at the scene at the time of the alleged offence by the state. If the witness was at work or if the timing of her attendance is inconsistent with the state’s version, such evidence may materially affect her credibility and the reliability of her observations.”
The defence also seeks proof of residence for two witnesses.
“The legal basis is that the residential addresses of these witnesses are relevant to their alleged proximity to the scene, their ability to observe the incident and the overall plausibility of the state’s version.”
‘Redacted statements’
Mogotsi’s defence again raised concerns about redacted statements, saying the state could not decide on its own to redact statements.
“The legal basis for that is that the defence is entitled to full disclosure of statements relied upon by the state, subject only to lawful privilege or a valid basis for redaction. Redactions may obscure material facts, inconsistencies, or prior versions of events that are necessary for proper preparation and effective cross-examination,” argued Mohomane.
When the defence previously raised the issue of redaction, the state said it was for security reasons. On the day, the magistrate agreed with the state’s reasons for redacting statements.
“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 at the time.
“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.”
‘No court order’
But the defence argued that it needed access to the full content of the statements to prepare for trial.
“My attorneys previously addressed the written demand to the prosecution and investigating officer, noting that the state redacted witness identities on that basis and that no court order authorised such withholding,” said Mohomane.
“The withholding of the witness identity and identifying particulars materially impairs my ability to investigate the allegations, to assess credibility and possible motive, to identify contradictions and prior connections, to obtain rebutting evidence and to prepare proper cross-examinations.”
The court postponed the case to 13 November for the state to respond.
