By Johnathan Paoli
Johannesburg Magistrate Annalise Tlhapi expressed frustration on Friday over repeated delays in the criminal case against political fixer Brown Mogotsi, after his defence failed to serve the prosecution with documents ahead of a hearing.
“These postponements…I’m not happy with that,” Tlhapi said, after the state requested more time to respond to an application seeking further particulars in the case.
Mogotsi faces five charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice and perjury.
ALSO READ: MK Party ousts Nomvalo as SG over alleged unilateral decisions
The charges stem from an alleged staged shooting in Vosloorus, east of Johannesburg, in November 2025.
The state alleges that Mogotsi fired shots at his own vehicle before falsely reporting to police that unknown gunmen had attacked him. Mogotsi has denied the charges.
Appearing in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Friday, defence counsel advocate Nthabiseng Mohomane argued that additional information, including cellphone records, employment documents and unredacted witness statements, was necessary to prepare for trial and test the credibility of state witnesses.
“The accused is entitled to sufficient information to meaningfully prepare for trial, to test the state’s evidence, and to challenge the credibility, reliability, and consistency of the witnesses upon whom the state intends to rely,” Mohomane said.
The defence wants cellphone records of witnesses who allegedly witnessed the shooting, covering both the day of the incident and the day they made their statements.
It is also seeking employment records, including clock-in and clock-out times, for one witness to establish whether that person was at work when the alleged shooting occurred.
Other requests include proof of residence for several witnesses, unredacted police statements and still images extracted from video footage already disclosed to the defence.
Mohomane argued that the state should explain why any requested information could not be provided.
“A bare refusal without explanation would undermine the accused’s right to a fair trial, preparation, and may amount to a failure of disclosure where the material is relevant and is reasonably obtainable,” she said.
In his founding affidavit, Mogotsi also challenged the state’s decision to withhold witnesses’ identities and identifying details on security grounds.
He argued that the state could not unilaterally withhold the information without a court order or a properly substantiated application for protective measures.
However, prosecutor Thami Mpekana told the court that the state had only just received the application and needed time to respond.
ALSO READ: Baloyi declares war on Zille’s Johannesburg mayoral bid
“I currently do not have a response to this document. I need time to respond properly,” Mpekana said.
Mohomane acknowledged that the application had apparently not been served on the prosecution as she had believed. She apologised for the oversight and did not oppose a postponement.
Tlhapi criticised the handling of the application, saying the prosecution should have been given sufficient notice to prepare.
“The problem is that you’re supposed to provide it to the respondent in this matter with the necessary documentation so that he can prepare himself. You cannot, on the day of the application, bring this information, and you’re making a request that it will be responded to without getting enough time to prepare, which is not right,” Tlhapi said.
She instructed the state to respond as soon as possible and reminded the defence that documents must be served ahead of court proceedings.
The matter was postponed to 13 November.
