By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has dismissed an application by the controversial businessman Oupa Brown Mogotsi seeking Chief evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson’s recusal.
Mogotsi accuses Chaskalson of having a personal vendetta against him and trying to portray him as a dishonest witness.
He further claimed Chaskalson has manipulated evidence and offered him protection in exchange for implicating another African National Congress (ANC)-linked North West businessman, Suleiman Carrim.
His legal representative, Advocate Nthabiseng Mohomane, argued that the application was based on what they perceived as “bias and a lack of impartiality” on the part of Chaskalson.
The application centred on WhatsApp communications exchanged between Mogotsi and Chaskalson.
According to Mohomane, Chaskalson allegedly promised to help and protect Mogotsi if he provided adverse information about Carrim.
However, Commissioner Sesi Baloyi strongly challenged the basis of the recusal application during an exchange with Mohomane, arguing that Mogotsi himself had initiated contact with Chaskalson and volunteered information about Carrim.
Baloyi said Mogotsi did not dispute that he approached Chaskalson first.
“Mr. Mogotsi approached Mr. Chaskalson with an offer to give him information about Mr. Carrim,” Baloyi said.
She questioned how those discussions could later be used as grounds for alleging bias.
Baloyi also corrected Mohomane on the legal standard applicable in recusal matters.
“The issue of bias is subjective,” Mohomane initially argued.
But Baloyi responded: “You are incorrect. It’s an incorrect standard to say the issue of bias is subjective. It’s an objective test.”
Pressed further by the commissioner, Mohomane eventually conceded that Mogotsi’s merely approaching Chaskalson could not, on its own, justify a recusal application.
The evidence leader Adv Adila Hassim accused Mogotsi of tampering with WhatsApp exchanges between himself and Chaskalson.
Hassim told the commission that Mogotsi had submitted evidence that concealed the deletion of messages and calls from their communication history.
“He denied tampering, but then he admitted that he deleted the message on March 12, 2026. He said the deletion was made to protect the conversation from unnamed third persons. I am not sure what we are supposed to make of that,” said Hassim.
She maintained that Chaskalson was not a decision-maker within the commission and had no authority over issues of admissibility or credibility, which ultimately rest with the commissioners.
Hassim also revealed that she intended requesting investigations into possible perjury and forgery once her submissions were concluded.
Commission chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga announced the ruling after lunchtime.
“The application is dismissed. Reasons will be given during the course of next week, if not, the week after.”
Despite the ruling, Mogotsi’s legal team indicated that he intended pursuing a review application following the dismissal of the recusal bid.
Madlanga, however, made it clear that the inquiry would continue in the absence of any court order halting proceedings.
After consulting his lawyers during a short break, Mogotsi agreed to answer questions, clarifying his earlier stance.
He explained that when he declined to incriminate himself, he did so fully aware of the possible consequences, including the risk of contempt proceedings.
“If I say I do not want to incriminate myself, I am answering.”
As the proceedings continued, Chaskalson presented an affidavit from a senior Crime Intelligence official responsible for undercover operations and an agent programme.
The statement confirmed that Mogotsi had never been registered as an undercover agent of the South African Police Service (Saps).
“There are no records that indicate that Mr Mogotsi was ever an agent,” the statement reads.
Mogotsi declined to comment on the contents of the affidavit and that concluded his testimony.
Justice Madlanga thanked Mogotsi for his time and announced the commission will temporarily adjourn to prepare its second interim report to president Cyril Ramaphosa. The Commission will resume its public hearings on the 1st of June 2026.
Meanwhile the South African Police Service (SAPS) wishes to inform members of the public and the media that the task team previously referred to as the Madlanga Task Team will henceforth be known as the Commissions Recommendations Task Team (CRTT).
The name change is aimed at ensuring clarity regarding the mandate and scope of task team, which is responsible for investigating matters arising from recommendations made by the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
Members of the media and the public are encouraged to utilise the new official name in all future references and reporting. The SAPS appreciates the continued support and cooperation from all stakeholders as the task team continues to execute its mandate without fear or favour.