The state prosecutor and defence remained at odds on Thursday over the residential address of alleged political fixer Oupa ‘Brown’ Mogotsi in his bail application.
Mogotsi returned to the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court in connection with allegations that he orchestrated an attempt on his own life.
He was arrested on 15 May and detained for defeating the ends of justice. The case emanates from the alleged staging of an attempted assassination on his life in Vosloorus in November last year. Mogotsi’s Chevrolet was struck by several bullets.
According to the State, he is facing charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, defeating the ends of justice, perjury, unlawful possession of ammunition and discharging a firearm in a public space.
‘Minimal clothing’
On Monday, 25 May, the court adjourned after the investigating officer was requested to follow up on the verification of Mogotsi’s residential address.
On Thursday, State prosecutor Thami Mpekane read a supplementary affidavit by the investigating officer which reiterated that Mogotsi’s residential address could not be confirmed.
“A pin location was supplied as per the applicant’s supplemental statement placed before the court. At the pin location of the left-hand side, I found a residential address. There was no street number displayed at the house,” reads the affidavit.
“I approached the house and found a female at the residence and introduced myself. She introduced herself as Dorothy Ledwaba. I confirmed that she is the same person who supplied the affidavit relating to the applicant’s residential status.
“As I could not establish the street number of the property, I asked Dorothy Ledwaba if she knows what the number of the property is. She immediately told me that the number is 4544. This does not correspond with the house number in the affidavit.
“She was requested to point out the personal property of the applicant and she pointed out minimal clothing in the main bedroom. She could not produce any personal documentation of the other belongings of the applicant. In my view, there is no property of substantial value at the residence belonging to the applicant.”
‘Mogotsi a well-known person’
In his defence, his attorneys, Nthabiseng Mohomane and Makau William Sekgatja, argued that Mogotsi remains presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law.
Mohomane raised an issue of jurisdiction, saying the State had not explained why the matter was before the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court and not the court of first instance.
“What we were informed by the state is that the matter was here for administrative purposes and possible future consolidation of other matters that relate. Despite the fact that an objection was not raised, your worship, we will reserve our rights relating to the issue of the jurisdiction of this matter,” argued Mohomane.
She further argued that her client could be traced as he was a well-known person. This, despite the State’s objection to his release on bail.
“He’s a well-known businessman and he’s a public figure. The applicant has also previously appeared before public institutions. This includes the Madlanga commission of inquiry and has engaged with parliamentary processes. The applicant is not a person capable of disappearing into anonymity. His identity, movements and public activities are widely known and readily traceable,” argued Mohomane.
Business interests
Sekgatja and Mohomane said that the “minimal” clothing found at the address provided by Mogotsi was not of substance. What matters is that the clothing was there and should prove that Mogotsi lives there.
“This cannot be a ground to say a person is a flight risk or does not reside there. Is there a formula in terms of the number of items you need to find in a particular house? A person can have three or four items, but it does not mean they do not stay there,” argued Sekgatja.
“The applicant has substantial ties to South Africa, including family, residence and business interests. The applicant is financially responsible for the support and maintenance of his household and dependents,” said Mohomane.
“Prior to his arrest, the applicant remained traceable through available information and investigative channels. Following the arrest, the applicant provided an affidavit from his customary wife confirming residence, contact details of his customary wife, WhatsApp communications and GPS location details and telephone contact information. Despite the above, the investigating officer persists in alleging that the applicant cannot be traced or verified.”
The matter was postponed to 4 June 2026 for judgment.
