Demands Security Funded by Parliament to Testify
By Thabo Mosia
Pretoria –
A North West businessman at the centre of a high-stakes police corruption probe has set tough conditions for his appearance before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee, demanding that lawmakers foot the bill for his private security team for seven days or he will not show up.
Brown Mogotsi, who has been called to testify on serious allegations of criminal infiltration in the South African Police Service, made his stance clear in communications with the committee.
He insists on using his own security detail, which he already employs regularly, and wants Parliament to cover the costs for the full week.
The committee has slammed these terms as “ridiculous” and resolved to subpoena him, forcing his attendance despite the refusal.
This standoff highlights the challenges in getting key witnesses to speak in probes that could expose deep-rooted issues in law enforcement, leaving ordinary South Africans wondering if powerful figures are dodging accountability while crime continues to plague communities.
As the inquiry pushes forward, Mogotsi’s demands raise questions about witness protection and the lengths some will go to avoid the spotlight.
The Demands: Private Security on Parliament’s Dime
Mogotsi laid out his conditions plainly: he will not appear before the Ad Hoc Committee unless Parliament pays for his personal security team for seven days.
He wants to use his own guards, whom he already has on retainer, rather than relying on standard parliamentary protection.
This request came ahead of his scheduled testimony, set for a Thursday session, but Mogotsi has refused to attend without these arrangements in place.
Committee members have rejected the demands outright, calling them unreasonable and beyond what Parliament can accommodate.
One insider described it as allowing a witness to dictate terms, which undermines the inquiry’s authority. Mogotsi’s reasoning ties to security fears, as he has cited threats in past probes, but the committee sees it as an attempt to delay or avoid questioning altogether.
For everyday people, this means understanding how witnesses in big cases can hold up processes meant to uncover truth. Subpoenas are legal tools to compel attendance, with penalties like fines or arrest for non-compliance.
By moving to subpoena Mogotsi, the committee aims to cut through the excuses and get to the facts, ensuring the probe does not stall over one person’s conditions.
The Ad Hoc Committee’s Response: Subpoena on the Way
Faced with Mogotsi’s refusal, the Ad Hoc Committee has decided to issue a subpoena, a formal order requiring him to appear or face legal consequences.
This step came after discussions where members expressed frustration over the “ridiculous demands” and the way they allow the process to be “undermined.”
The committee chair has confirmed plans to proceed with the subpoena, emphasising that no witness can dictate terms like funding private security.
This action follows Mogotsi’s history of testifying in related inquiries, like the Madlanga Commission where he claimed to be a police informant with ties to international agencies.
His reluctance now, despite previous appearances, has puzzled some, but the committee is determined to hear from him on allegations raised by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi about criminal networks in SAPS.
The subpoena process involves serving legal papers, giving Mogotsi a set date to appear. If he skips, arrest warrants could follow, showing Parliament’s power to enforce cooperation in matters of public interest.
Brown Mogotsi’s Role: From Businessman to Key Witness
Brown Mogotsi, an ANC-aligned businessman from the North West, has become a pivotal figure in corruption probes.
He has testified before on his role as an informant, revealing alleged payoffs and protections involving top police officials like suspended Deputy National Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya. Mogotsi claimed involvement with global bodies like the CIA, adding intrigue to his story.
His links to businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, accused of bribing officers for tenders, make his evidence crucial. Mogotsi has denied being part of any cartel but admitted to sharing sensitive info.
His security demands stem from fears of reprisals, as whistleblowers in such cases often face threats. However, critics see it as stalling, especially since he has appeared in other forums without similar conditions.
For South Africans, Mogotsi’s position shows how business and politics mix in probes, where witnesses hold info that could expose rot but also risk their safety.
His refusal highlights the need for better protection systems to encourage testimony without personal costs.
The Inquiry’s Focus: Criminal Infiltration in SAPS
The Ad Hoc Committee probes claims by Mkhwanazi of criminal networks and political interference in the police. This includes a “Big Five” cartel allegedly influencing tenders and investigations.
Witnesses have shared recordings and details of payoffs, painting a picture of compromised officers.
Mogotsi’s testimony could clarify his informant role and ties to figures like Matlala, who allegedly paid Sibiya R1 million monthly.
The committee has heard clashing accounts from leaders like Senona, who accused Mkhwanazi of threats. Subpoenaing Mogotsi aims to fill gaps, ensuring a full picture emerges.
This work ties to the Madlanga Commission on political killings, where similar claims surfaced. For communities hit by crime, it means hoping for reforms that clean up SAPS, making streets safer.
Broader Concerns: Witness Protection and Public Trust
Mogotsi’s demands spotlight flaws in witness protection.
South Africa’s system offers guards or relocation for high-risk cases, but many feel it falls short, leading to refusals. Parliament’s rejection of funding private security raises questions on balancing costs with safety.
The standoff erodes trust in inquiries, as delays let allegations linger without resolution. Civil groups call for better safeguards to encourage testimony, ensuring probes produce credible outcomes, not “box-ticking exercises” as some fear.
In a country with high corruption perceptions, this matters for democracy. Transparent processes build faith, showing no one is above scrutiny. As the committee pushes subpoenas, the hope is for truth that leads to accountable policing.
Looking Ahead: Subpoena’s Impact and Potential Outcomes
With the subpoena incoming, Mogotsi must decide to comply or face consequences.
His testimony could break the inquiry open, exposing more on police rot. If he skips, arrests could follow, setting a precedent for future witnesses.
For Parliament, this tests its authority in holding powerful figures accountable.
As the Ad Hoc Committee continues, South Africans watch for results that clean up SAPS and restore safety.
Mogotsi’s case reminds us that justice needs cooperation, even when risky, to serve the greater good.
🔴Central News Special Edition | Issue 122: Download the Latest Print and E-Edition | Suspended Ekurhuleni Deputy Chief Julius Mkhwanazi Vows ‘I Can’t Go to Jail and Leave My Kids’ Amid Blue Lights Saga Scrutiny 🔴
Download here⬇️⬇️⬇️
Read all our publications on magzter:
https://www.magzter.com/ZA/Central-News-Pty-Ltd/Central-News/Newspaper/All-Issues
Central News also offers Sponsored Editorial Content, Podcasts , Radio / Social Media Simulcast, Video Production , Live Streaming Services, Press Conferences, and Paid Interviews (Video/Audio) etc.
We guarantee exceptional exposure, reach, and engagement, with an excellent return on investment.
Advertisement:
To place your advert on our platforms (Print Newspaper or Digital Platforms) : Please email : sales@centralnews.co.za
For Business Related:
business@centralnews.co.za
Newsroom:
Send your Stories / Media Statements To: newsroom@centralnews.co.za
General Info:
info@centralnews.co.za
Office Administrator:
admin@centralnews.co.za
Whatsapp / Call: 081 495 5487
Website: https://www.centralnews.co.za
Social Media Platforms (@centralnewsza) : Linkedin, Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube