By Johnathan Paoli
The Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court has postponed the case against political fixer and businessman Brown Mogotsi to 20 August following a dispute over outstanding docket material and the State’s decision to redact the identities and personal details of witnesses.
Mogotsi faces five charges of perjury, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and discharging a firearm in a public or built-up area.
The charges stem from the State’s allegation that Mogotsi staged an assassination attempt on his own life in Vosloorus in November 2025 and subsequently gave police a false account of the incident.
ALSO READ: DA’s Expropriation Act challenge begins in Western Cape High Court
Appearing in court on Monday, Mogotsi’s counsel, Makau Sekgatja, requested that the matter stand down so that the parties could compare the documents already disclosed with those the defence maintained were still outstanding.
“We only received the statements today and not all of them. The statements we are receiving today come after we requested them on 10 July,” Sekgatja said.
The dispute centred on witness statements supplied by the prosecution with the names and personal details of witnesses redacted.
Sekgatja argued that the prosecution had no legal authority to withhold the identities of witnesses without first obtaining a court order.
“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. [O]ur client needs to know who are these persons who are actually saying whatever that they are saying against him,” he said.
Sekgatja said that while protecting witnesses’ identities from the media and the public was important, Mogotsi’s legal team required their names to investigate the allegations and adequately prepare for trial.
ALSO READ: Voters’ roll surpasses 28 million ahead of local government elections
“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,” he said.
Sekgatja denied that Mogotsi had threatened or intimidated any State witness and accused the prosecution of causing unnecessary delays.
Prosecutor Thami Mpekana denied that the State was withholding witness statements, saying it had redacted only the witnesses’ names and personal information.
Mpekana argued that the State was entitled to withhold the information because of concerns about witness safety.
“The other reason that the state embarked on this case is because during the bail application there was a threat that was made to one of the state witnesses. We are trying to avoid such an incident from happening,” he said.
He said the defence had already been given the substance of the witnesses’ evidence and argued that withholding their names did not prevent Mogotsi from preparing his defence.
Sekgatja disputed the State’s characterisation of the incident, arguing that it did not amount to intimidation and was not a violent threat directed by Mogotsi.
“There is no state witness in relation to this particular matter that was ever intimidated. The accused person in this matter is not even facing any particular charge for intimidation of any particular witnesses,” he said.
Sekgatja said the defence wanted to investigate whether the witnesses existed and whether they had been present during the alleged incident.
“The accused person needs to be in a position to investigate and know that if he wants to disprove any of the [averments] which have been made by the witness in those particular cases, he must have enough information before him so that he can be in a position to disprove that particular information,” Sekgatja said.
ALSO READ: Ramaphosa urges frustrated voters to judge ANC on recent progress ahead of local elections
The court questioned both parties on whether disclosure should allow an accused person to prepare adequately for trial, while also emphasising the need to protect witnesses.
It declined to order the immediate disclosure of the witnesses’ names and addresses at this stage.
The State was, however, directed to provide any outstanding witness statements on which it intended to rely at trial, should further statements remain undisclosed.
Mogotsi has remained in custody since his arrest on 15 May 2026 after his bail applications and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful.
