By Johnathan Paoli
Alleged political fixer Brown Mogotsi came under sustained scrutiny on Tuesday as members of Parliament’s ad hoc committee questioned his claims that he had operated for years as a crime intelligence asset and informant within the South African Police Service (SAPS).
Making his first appearance before the committee — which is probing allegations of police interference and corruption — Mogotsi faced intense cross-examination over both his alleged intelligence role and a series of inflammatory public claims.
He was forced to apologise after falsely alleging that KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and Zulu King Misuzulu kaZwelithini were CIA spies, conceding that the claims were completely unfounded.
“I apologise to General Mkhwanazi and King Misuzulu for saying they were spies. I withdraw the claim that they were spies,” Mogotsi said.
Mogotsi also denied ever discussing the political killings task team’s disbandment with Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya or Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, who remains on special leave.
However, he maintained that he had long-standing ties to crime intelligence and had worked under several “handlers” over the years.
“I was an intelligence asset and an informant. I worked with handlers over many years,” Mogotsi told MPs, maintaining that his relationship with crime intelligence was legitimate and known within police structures.
But committee members were unconvinced and repeatedly pressed him to clarify his status, role and income streams.
“Your entire statement gives us the impression that you are a member of SAPS, which you are not. You are an informant,” ActionSA’s Dereleen James told Mogotsi.
Much of the session also focused on his background as a businessman and the basis on which he described himself as an “entrepreneur”.
EFF leader Julius Malema challenged Mogotsi directly, questioning both the substance of his business activities and his understanding of intelligence work.
“Why is Mogotsi calling himself an entrepreneur? I want to understand that because it can’t be a concept loosely thrown around,” Malema said.
“Secondly, what is an informant? Under which department does an informant fall?”
In response, Mogotsi described his business activities as modest and largely informal.
He told the committee he sold alcohol and meat on a small scale while maintaining links with intelligence structures.
“Perhaps I should say I was an informant,” Mogotsi said. “As an agent, it was in 2009 — that’s when I became an agent.”
His shifting descriptions prompted further concern among MPs, who noted apparent inconsistencies between being an informant, an agent and a civilian asset.
Members repeatedly asked who formally recruited him, who paid him and whether any documentary proof existed to substantiate his claims.
Mogotsi conceded he had no written contracts or official letters confirming his status, but insisted this was common practice in intelligence operations. He argued that informants and assets often operate without formal documentation for security reasons.
The committee indicated that his inability to provide corroborating evidence echoed concerns previously raised at the Madlanga Commission, where his credibility and reliability as a witness have also been questioned.
Throughout the hearing, MPs expressed frustration at what they described as vague answers and a lack of specificity, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations under investigation.
Several members warned that claims of being an intelligence asset could not rest solely on self-identification, especially amid accusations that intelligence structures have been abused for factional and criminal purposes.
The committee is probing whether individuals such as Mogotsi acted as intermediaries between politicians, police officials and criminal networks, and whether crime intelligence resources were improperly used to shield certain individuals from scrutiny.
Mogotsi denied acting as a fixer for political interests or criminal syndicates, insisting his involvement with intelligence was motivated by cooperation with law enforcement rather than personal gain.
INSIDE POLITICS
