Brown Mogotsi may face police probe for ‘manipulated evidence’

North West businessman Brown Mogotsi has been unsuccessful in an his attempt to have a Madlanga Commission of Inquiry evidence leader removed from proceedings.

In addition, Mogotsi heard that he should be referred to police for investigation over material he submitted to back his recusal argument.

This emerged on Friday, 15 May 2026, during Madlanga Commission proceedings.

Last month, Mogotsi was meant to continue testifying before the commission.

But he had submitted that he would bring the formal application for the withdrawal of evidence leader advocate Matthew Chaskalson, over perceived bias and impartiality on his part.

‘Not going to incriminate myself’

During Friday’s application proceedings, another Madlanga Commission evidence leader was of the view that Mogotsi’s attempt should not only be blocked, but that he should also be referred to police for investigation for possible perjury.

After hearing submissions from both sides, Madlanga Commission chair Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga dismissed Mogotsi’s application. He said he would provide his reasons over the next two weeks.

Madlanga also ordered that Mogotsi resume his testimony on Friday, led by the very individual Mogotsi had wanted recused – Chaskalson.

Mogotsi may still bring a review application in this saga.

Before he started testifying on Friday, he said he wanted the commission to know: “I’m very much unhappy with the proceedings.”

Mogotsi said his legal representative had been interrupted several times.

When Chaskalson started asking him questions about when exactly he met suspended Deputy National Commissioner of Crime Detection Shadrack Sibiya and Mogotsi’s role in Crime Intelligence, as he had previously alleged, Mogotsi clammed up.

“I’m not going to incriminate myself,” he said.

Mogotsi responded to several other questions with variations of this comment, sometimes adding partial answers or other statements.

Claims about Suleiman Carrim

Earlier during the recusal application proceedings, the focus was on Mogotsi’s founding affidavit, dated 29 April 2026, that said leads he had provided for investigation to the commission had not been prioritised.

He was of the view that the commission’s attention was instead diverted to individuals, including ANC-linked businessman Suleiman Carrim.

Carrim previously admitted to having a relationship with, among others, Mogotsi and tender tycoon Morgan Maumela, whom the Special Investigating Unit has flagged for his alleged role in R2-billion looting at Tembisa Hospital.

Mogotsi’s affidavit in the recusal application often referred to Carrim as “Sulliman”.

It explained that Mogotsi and Chaskalson had shared several WhatsApp calls and messages.

(But it emerged during Friday’s proceedings that Mogotsi had deleted certain records of these, which means he could have done so to promote only his version of events.)

Mogotsi’s affidavit explained that on 9 March 2026 Chaskalson returned a call of his, and during a three-minute conversation said: “Get me anything against Sulliman and I will help you.”

Mogotsi’s affidavit also alleged: “[Chaskalson] further stated that Sulliman had implicated me and that I should find a way to defend myself.

“He expressed his belief that Sulliman was lying, that Sulliman had ‘thrown me under the bus’, and that he wanted me to do the same to Sulliman.”

‘Conditional protection’

Mogotsi had, at that stage, wanted to know if Chaskalson would postpone Carrim’s testimony before the Madlanga Commission.

According to Mogotsi’s affidavit: “I was left with the distinct impression that my protection from adverse findings by the commission was being made conditional upon my willingness to provide information and documentation to assist Adv Chaskalson SC in ‘finishing off’ Mr Sulliman Carrim.”

But Madlanga pointed out to Mogotsi’s legal representative, Advocate Nthabiseng Mohomane, that Mogotsi “was the one persistently knocking on the door of” Chaskalson.

Evidence leader Sesi Baloyi SC added to this, saying Mogotsi had offered “unsolicited” information about Carrim.

She said Mogotsi’s stance that Chaskalson had acted with perceived bias and impartiality therefore did not seem to hold.

‘Manipulated evidence’

Evidence leader Adila Hassim SC said Mogotsi’s attempt to recuse Chaskalson involved “a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts” and described it as “as abuse of the commission’s process”.

She said Mogotsi had admitted to “making several deletions” in terms of WhatsApp communication between him and Chaskalson.

This, Hassim said, meant he acknowledged manipulating the WhatsApp communications. (Although Mogotsi himself had not used the word “manipulate”.)

She added that Mogotsi submitted that he deleted certain messages “to protect the conversation from unnamed third persons”.

It was not clear who these individuals were.

Hassim said Mogotsi should be referred to police for investigation for possible perjury and forgery.

An answering affidavit, submitted in the matter by Madimpe Mogashoa, an attorney for the Madlanga Commission, backed Hassim’s assertions.

It was not read out during Friday’s proceedings, but formed part of the documents submitted in the matter.

“The foundation of Mr Mogotsi’s case is that Mr Chaskalson placed improper pressure on him to provide evidence against Mr Carrim and that the evidence leader’s ‘help’ was conditional upon Mr Mogotsi implicating Mr Carrim,” it said.

“Mr Chaskalson’s answer is that the true record shows the opposite: Mr Mogotsi initiated and pursued the communications.”

Mogashoa said Mogotsi made “the grave accusation” that Chaskalson “induced [him] to give false evidence before the commission against Mr Carrim”.

This aspect was fleshed out.

Referral for police investigation

“The irony is stark. As is evident from Mr Chaskalson’s affidavit, in order to support that accusation, Mr Mogotsi has himself placed before the Commission a falsified and materially incomplete record of the relevant communications,” Mogashoa’s answering affidavit said.

“That conduct is not merely destructive of the credibility of his application; it is an affront to the integrity of the Commission’s processes.”

Mogashoa’s affidavit said Brown’s actions should be referred to the South African Police Service (SAPS) for investigation as they could amount to offences including perjury and forgery.

“This application should be dismissed. It is legally misconceived, factually fraudulent, and seeks relief without a proper legal foundation,” Mogashoa’s affidavit said.

A short while later Madlanga dismissed the application after which Chaskalson started questioning Mogotsi who was still in the witness stand late on Friday afternoon.

Mogotsi and Matlala versus Mkhwanazi

The Madlanga Commission is investigating accusations that a drug cartel has infiltrated South Africa’s criminal justice system, politics and private security.

KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi first made these accusations in July last year during a press conference.

Among those he named was Mogotsi and organised crime accused Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, who now faces various criminal charges.

In one of the cases he is embroiled in, Matlala’s co-accused include several senior police officers, among them, suspended national police commissioner Fannie Masemola.

Mogotsi, meanwhile, has been accused of acting as a middleman between Matlala and suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu, who was sidelined last year after these allegations first surfaced.

Mchunu has denied any wrongdoing.

Mogotsi, previously testifying before the Madlanga Commission, claimed he was a Crime Intelligence informant. (He did not answer questions that Chaskalson put to him about this on Friday.)

He had also alleged, without providing evidence, that Mkhwanazi and Zulu King Misuzulu kaZwelithini had been recruited by the US Central Intelligence Agency.

Mogotsi subsequently retracted these statements in the ad hoc parliamentary committee hearing that is running parallel to the Madlanga Commission.

The Madlanga Commission is now set to take a break to focus on preparing a second interim report due to be delivered to President Cyril Ramaphosa on 29 May. DM