Brown Mogotsi appeared in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Friday, November 13, where his application to access the identities of two State witnesses was dismissed.
Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers
The Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court has refused to disclose the identities of two State witnesses in the criminal case against self-proclaimed political fixer Brown Mogotsi, ruling that their safety must be protected despite his legal team's argument that withholding their names undermines his right to a fair trial.
Mogotsi returned to court on Friday, where his defence sought an order compelling the prosecution to reveal the witnesses' names and addresses, along with additional evidence relating to charges stemming from an alleged staged assassination attempt in Vosloorus in November 2025.
This comes after Mogotsi's previous court appearance on October 23, when the matter was postponed to allow the State more time to respond to his application for further particulars. His legal team argued that the outstanding information was necessary to challenge the credibility of State witnesses and prepare for cross-examination.
Mogotsi faces charges including perjury, defeating the ends of justice, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, and discharging a firearm in a public place.
The charges stem from an alleged shooting incident in Vosloorus on November 3, 2025, during which prosecutors allege Mogotsi fired shots at his own vehicle before reporting that he had survived an assassination attempt.
Defence challenges withholding of witnesses' names
During Friday's proceedings, Mogotsi's legal representative argued that the State had failed to provide sufficient justification for concealing the identities of witnesses expected to testify against him.
The defence maintained that the restrictions prevented it from independently investigating the witnesses, establishing possible motives and determining whether they were present at the scene of the alleged shooting.
"The state cannot be allowed to act unilaterally and hide behind security reasons," the defence argued.
The lawyer questioned how Mogotsi could adequately prepare for trial without knowing the identities of people whose evidence would be used against him.
"How do we investigate that in order to prepare for trial?" the defence asked.
The defence also sought cellphone records to establish whether witnesses were near the scene at the relevant time, as well as employment records to verify whether one witness, identified as A5, had been at work.
State raises witness intimidation concerns
The prosecution opposed disclosing the witnesses' identities, arguing that revealing their names and addresses could expose them to intimidation or interference.
The State referred to an incident during Mogotsi's bail proceedings in which his wife allegedly visited a witness who had disputed an address supplied as Mogotsi's residence.
According to the prosecution, the witness subsequently opened an intimidation case, although the matter was not enrolled for prosecution.
"We as the state, we do not want to risk that these witnesses might be visited if their addresses are being given to the defence," the prosecutor told the court.
However, Mogotsi's legal representative disputed the argument, saying the woman involved was not a witness in the current criminal proceedings and that the complaint had been directed against his wife rather than Mogotsi.
The defence argued that the prosecution could seek less restrictive protective measures instead of withholding witness information entirely.
Magistrate rules witnesses' names must remain confidential
Delivering his ruling, the magistrate said the court had to balance Mogotsi's constitutional right to a fair trial against the potential risks to State witnesses.
"The fair trial requirement is fundamental," the magistrate said.
He dismissed the application for the witnesses' names, addresses and unredacted statements.
"I still maintain my decision that the names must not be disclosed in the interest of the safety of the witnesses," he ruled.
The magistrate said revealing such information could expose witnesses and their families to unnecessary risks and potentially discourage them from testifying.
However, the court ordered the prosecution to obtain cellphone records through a Section 205 subpoena, with the witnesses' names and telephone numbers redacted and replaced with identifying codes.
The State was also ordered to obtain confirmation from witness A5's employer indicating whether the witness was at work on the day of the alleged incident, including the times the witness started and finished work.
The magistrate found that these measures would allow the defence to test aspects of the witnesses' accounts without compromising their identities.
Case postponed to December
Friday's proceedings concluded with the court postponing the matter to December 9, 2026, to allow the prosecution to comply with the order to obtain the outstanding records.
Although his legal team will receive additional information to test the witnesses' accounts, their names and residential addresses will remain confidential.
The criminal proceedings against Mogotsi are continuing.