Wrong House, Bribe Claims & No Freedom — Brown Mogotsi Stays Locked Up Until June 4

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:10]Motion proceed.

[00:00:24]The adding officer is Map and for the state is Mr. and for the defense is Mr. Um Yosh the matter was reminded for to today for purposes of uh for the state to make a further verification.

[00:00:45]The investigating officer has prepared a statement and responding to the uh supplementary affidavit of the applicant. Yoship with leave of the honorable court. May I read the statement into the record?

[00:01:04]Um, Yoshi, the state is going to proceed reading uh paragraph six. The reason for reading paragraph six, continuing from paragraph 6 is that uh the uh other paragraphs are referring to uh the uh the introduction and they are contained in the uh police affidavit that was earlier on.

[00:01:31]And yes, um uh paragraph number six reads as thus on 25th May 2026, I was requested to follow up on a residential address verification of the applicant.

[00:01:46]Seven, a pin location was supplied as per the applicant supplementary statement placed before court. Eight, 27 on 27 in eight. At the pin location of the left hand side, I found a residential address. There was no street number displayed at the house attached as AR O2 photos 2 to7. I I approached the house and found a female at the residence. I introduced myself and she introduced herself as Dorothy Lewaba. I verified her identity with her uh ID. She produced I took a photo of her ID attached as a R.

[00:02:47]And what is also of significance your worship if the applicant was not residing there and the owner according to the municipality did not know that that applicant is there he would have been out of that place his his assets are there meaning that between whoever this Albert who signed the lease and the owner there's knowledge about the applicant living there we've had instances where people applied to be released on bail who live in informal settlements you can't even pin a location but those people are admitted to bail and they given an opportunity to attend to court outside.

[00:03:24]Now your worship there was also an issue with regards to previous convictions.

[00:03:31]The applicant made mention of two he made mention of three previous convictions and the state made mention of five previous convictions. Six Yoship Yoship. The submission is that the three that were mentioned by the state that the applicant didn't mention, he gave a plausible explanation to the court and he informed the court that all of them a fine was imposed and he did not serve any direct imprisonment. Hence on his limited understanding that did not make a previous conviction. I'll invite the court to look at the reality that the applicant is a lay person and accommodate the applicant in as far as the possibility of making errors especially because these previous convictions are fines and he wasn't incarcerated for them. I further invite the court to find that that omission was not malafid on the charges the applicant is charged with defeating the ends of justice possession of a firearm which is a 9 mm firearm possession of ammunition for a 9 mm and discharging a firearm in public.

[00:04:48]My submission is that on the defeating the ends of justice.

[00:04:53]Even on the case law, nobody has ever gotten a lengthy term of imprisonment.

[00:04:58]The general notion is that 3 years, if a court finds someone guilty, is a sentence that is handed out by the court. Now, your worship on the aspect of a firearm, the definition of the state does not defy that 9 mm to be a semi-automatic firearm. My submission is that in the absence of it being a semi-automatic firearm, it does not invite the imposition of a minimum sentence. On the issue of ammunition law, I'll refer the court to the case of state versus. It's a Z A GP JHC 368 where the court imposed a sentence of 2 years. Now your worship, let's look at these sentences that are referred to the court holistically. They are not lengthy sentences. They thus take away the ability to incite the applicant to evade his trial. I do not see a reason in light of the charges that have been profered why the applicant will evade his trial on the likelihood of sentence.

[00:06:02]your worship. The state in its papers also confirms that the applicant does have a business because at some point the investigating officer went to the business premises.

[00:06:14]Needless to say that that business is situated on triber land. It's a business that runs and it generates an income and the income that it generates contributes to the estate of the applicant before court. He's married. He handed over his passport to the investigating officer. That is also behavior that is inclining towards being honest. There is no need for the court to find that he is a flight risk. When he was called to the Majanga Commission, he appeared as he was requested on all occasions. He even except for when he was seek he he he he did not make himself available your worship. He also availed himself before the parliamentary committee when he was invited to do so.

[00:07:04]Worship the submission is that the applicant before court has made a proper case and he has demonstrated that the interest of justice permit his release on bail. Bail your worship is a contract between the applicant and the court that if he pays x amount of money.

[00:07:24]The amount that he pays ought to give him a reason to come and appear in court. Having said that, your worship, the amount of bail is solely within the prerogative of the court. The court can order an amount as it deems fit and the court may further add any conditions which it would like the applicant to adhere to.

[00:07:44]He still enjoys his right to be presumed innocent.

[00:07:52]Yoship, may I take an instruction?

[00:07:56]Thank you. Y further that there were allegations before this this court that the applicant attempted to bribe the investigating officer and I believe it to be prudent that submissions are made in that regard. The applicant before court denies the allegation of bribery.

[00:08:12]The arrest of the applicant was in the presence of numeral police officials and media personnel and at no stage was the applicant alone with the investigating officer. Further that to your worship that allegation is unsupported by independence evidence recordings or corroboration or witness confirmation. We therefore invite the court to look into this allegation with caution.

[00:08:38]What we are bringing to the court is not a determination on the guilt of the applicant but whether or not the interest of justice permit his release on the facts that the applicant placed before court remain uncontested and together with the other submissions that the applicant has made a proper case that he be admitted to bail and that he has passed pass the test for the interest of justice. The court ought to find in favor of the applicant.

[00:09:19]Your worship, I have dealt with the issue of bail conditions.

[00:09:23]I've also dealt with the issue of the bail amount. The applicant had however informed the court that he would afford bail in the amount of 10,000 rand.

[00:09:34]My submission on that amount is that that falls strictly within the ambit of the court. The court is not found by the amount that the applicant requests and the court may order as it deems fit.

[00:09:46]Yoship, the applicant has demonstrated that no ground exists under section 64 A2e warranting continued detention and that he be released on bail. Yoship, the heads of argument delegated the 28th of May. May I inquire from the court? Is there any aspect upon which the court would like you to address upon it on as the court to do?

[00:10:11]I'm not going to agitate the submissions which have already been made by council in relation to this particular bill application. Uh the principles in relation to bail have already been adequately out outlined by council. uh what I am going to do is just to touch base on some of the aspects that uh the applicant wishes for this court to be aware of. It's just for the purpose of clarity. The worship will remember that from the submissions by the investigating officer is that there is an issue in relation to the address which renders the applicant a flight.

[00:10:45]Now there is this aspect in relation to the number not necessarily the area or the street number or the street name.

[00:10:51]There is an issue relating to the number. Now the number that the investigation officer says he obtained recently it's 4544.

[00:11:00]The name of the street is the same. The area is the same. The number which has been provided in the lease agreement in the proof of residence from the long bati the affidavit of the wife is different to the extent that it starts with 4454.

[00:11:16]So it is just a a mistake an error and one can argue that it's an honest error.

[00:11:22]Your worship will note that the correct one would be the one which is 45 444 which was confirmed 45 >> 44 >> 44. Yes. Which was confirmed by the wife of the applicant in this matter. And this is according to the investigating officer's statement that when they arrived she produced the lease agreement and when we look at the lease agreement it refers to 4454 and not 4544. Now it is clear that the applicant's wife clarified this just so that uh it is clear that the investigating officer initially in his in his statement he went to number 4454 where he found uh initially in the first affidavity he went to 44 54 where he found Miss Tandi just want to get that name correctly I don't want to mislead the court yes tiwani Now what is important worship is that all this these numbers are in the same area. It is same street it is a matter of just uh one having made an error an error which one can also argue that it's an honest error. It is clear that the applicant's wife was under the impression when he she went and and submitted the affidavit and also when they went and obtained the approval of residence that where they are staying in terms of the lease agreement is 4454 and not 4544. So it is it is just a technical but the fact of the matter is that there is an address and that particular address exist and the investigative officer was not misled in terms of that particular address. He went and found this particular case. Now there is nothing from the investigating officer that says he further made investigations around that particular area and this investigation resulted in a finding that the applicant does not reside in that particular address which it has been given to him. He may be dissatisfied that he he found minimal items but that cannot be a ground to say that a person is a flight or does not reside there is a a formula in terms of the number of items that you need to found in a particular area or in a particular house because a person can have three items or four items but that doesn't necessarily mean that they do not stay there. Pictures were taken. It is a house. It's a property. A fixed property a fixed address. Now I just wanted to clarify that because it appears that it got us on the the the the the court asking itself that will the applicant be easily traceable under the circumstances. My plea with the court is for the court not to look at that particular issue in isolation but as my council has already submitted it must look at the address together with this business address which was positively confirmed by the investigating officer in this matter. In his statement he says he found a passer by who he asked about who he asked the applicant regarding the information regarding the applicant and this passerby directed him to this particular restaurant or liquor outlet where it's it's named old school old school but but the fact of the matter is that when he got there he found someone a lady which is a receptionist and that particular person gave the applicant's number that is where they actually managed to phone the applicant. Now this applicant is not a foreign national wherein we would say that he actually would have even any inclination to actually flee the republic of South Africa. We're dealing with a South African citizen in his affidavity. He has indicated that he was born in Mafik. The details of the mother, the details of the father, they've been placed in his affidavit.

[00:14:54]Further to that question, the applicant is not someone that one can say that can easily disappear. It it is not possible.

[00:15:01]He's very well known. He's been in the public. he's in TV. If he disappears anywhere in South Africa, he will be easily traceable unless if the court or unless if the state is saying that they do not have enough resources to actually trace the applicant in this matter, which I believe not. The state is very much equipped. We have intelligence in the Republic of South Africa that can actually easily locate the applicant if he disappears. Now as he has indicated in his affidavit the applicant he further says the warrant was issued on the 17th or rather signed on the 20th of April. On the 29th of April and that is not a dispute on the 29th he was at the commission. He attended to the commission. He could have been easily traced on the 15th again of May. He went and attended to the commission. Now when we look at that would we say that someone who attended the commission and as my council has already submitted as well as the adobo committee can decide and to disrespect this particular court and evade tribe. It is not possible.

[00:16:04]Actually the argument if there is any such argument is baseless. And he has kids worship. He has children. He has indicated that he has four children. And what the investigating officer doesn't also tell this court is that he confirmed that those particular children reside there at that particular address where the the applicant has indicated because if the court will remember the annex which is the affidavit of the applicant's wife, it clearly specifies that I reside in this particular address with my three children. It is there. Now why would the applicant uh decide not only to abandon his children but to also obey him when he has such strong family family ties in the Republic of South Africa. It doesn't really make sense.

[00:16:44]And as my counelor has already submitted the seriousness of the charges that the applicant is facing. It's not such that will actually give him any inclination to actually evade his trial. It's not like he's facing minimum sentences. And regarding the previous convictions now if the applicant did not want to uh rather to mislead this particular court so that he can actually obtain favor in relation to a bail application he would have decided that he is not going to even disclose any of the previous convictions. Now such a disclosure by an applicant in this matter, it shows that he was playing open card because however, as it was argued by my by my council that he omitted those particular previous convictions which were less serious and he was not subjected to a direct imprisonment. The court will note that the last previous conviction it was in 2012 that is over 10 years since the applicant in this matter had any brush with the law. It is clear that when we have regards to the submissions which were made by the investigating officer in his epidemic reging why bail should not be granted when we look at the the person of the accused of the applicant in this matter. Those particular grounds which have been submitted by the investigating officer do not have any merit and those particular previous convictions they are all unrelated to this particular matter. They do not create a pattern in relation to a conduct of the applicant in this matter.

[00:18:06]You know what I should note that the case against the applicant more so regarding the the staging of the assassination attempt this particular case from the evidence which has been submitted by the state it's relying on ballistics it's relying on CCTV footage and a witness all we have to do right now is that it's not necessary to say that there is a primapy case against the applicant in this matter that is a trial issue this court is not enjoined to actually determine the guilt of the applicant in this matter. There's case law in relation to that. Those are triable issues which the applicant will at the correct forum h object discredit and show that particular court that there is actually no case that the state has actually has published against him in this matter. Now applicant cannot say he was a is a violent person. The cases are dated 10 years ago. We cannot say that that is a danger to the public as it has actually been a by the investigating officer in affidavit. The investigating officer in his own affidavit further says that from the evidence that we have there was no one inside the vehicle when the shots were fired. Now you cannot then say that this person is a violent person when the alleged shots were fired when there's no one or these shots were not directed at anyone. Now when we look at the submissions which have been made there is a a particular impression that has been created by the investigating officer that the applicant is an untrustworthy person and this can be found in paragraph 20 of the investigating officer's affidavit.

[00:19:43]Perhaps one should actually start in paragraph 16 where the investigative officer indicates that he visited uh the applicant's address on the 3rd of March or the business address the business address on the 3rd of March. And when we go further, there is something that the court will note from the applicant's own habit. It says, I had my skepticism about this person actually being a police officer who was contacting me. And when we look at the fact that there's been a history in relation to the applicant wherein there was an alleged illegal raid in November, there was an attempted assassination that is according to him in December.

[00:20:22]Now on the 3rd of March and he is under protection because of the Madanga Commission. On the 3rd of March, a person purporting to be an investigating officer, a person who is unknown to him contacts him. We cannot say that for the mere fact that the applicant was reluctant to actually meet with the investigating officer. That means that the applicant is an untrustworthy person. He was reluctant based on the history of events which happened prior to the contacting by the investigating officer. That is where the elections emanate. Yes, it is correct that in paragraph 20 as the applicant he did not deny paragraph 20 that there were communications between him and the investigating officer. He doesn't deny that even in his supplementary affidavit he doesn't deny. But the issue is the situation now is different because he knows who the investigative officer is.

[00:21:08]If the investigating officer now contacts the the applicant in this matter and the applicant is doing is dodging and diving then we can say that the applicant knowingly that he is dealing with the investigating officer is evading or rather was was was avoiding the investigating officer in this match but then previously that is something different uh he was he had his reluctance and his reluctance worship I submit was justified I I'm told that the applicant is asking that I should approach. May I just quickly approach Scott please?

[00:21:43]Okay, he wanted me to just clarify the submission which was made in relation to the passport. Uh he wanted to clarify that that particular passport which we submitted a copy of it's actually in possession of the wife the original.

[00:21:56]Yes. So I I I I just recollected that there was a submission that the IO has already taken the passport. He just wanted me to clarify that particular point that the passport is available. uh the passport is available upon his release and if we can actually uh uni the IO dealt with the movement of the applicant uh in and out of the Republic of South Africa but however the applicant does not deny that he has moved out of the Republic of South Africa but he says I do not have relatives I do not have assets outside the Republic of South Africa so there are no financial or economic ties in those particular or rather outside the Republic of South Africa so he does not have any issues if a condition is placed that his passport actually be confiscated by the by the by the by the investigating officer in this matter.

[00:22:40]And in fact, should any need arise that perhaps he needs to use his passport, he will have to approach this particular court again so that he should actually have the court to vary this particular conditions of his b conditions regarding the passport and those arrangements will be done with the knowledge of the court and the knowledge of the investigating officer in this matter. Now I have dealt with the issue relating to the applicant the meetings not materializing and not necessarily meaning that the applicant is not a a reliable person. Now in paragraph 46.5 of the of the investigating officer's initial initial fatality the investigating officer in trying to qualify that the applicant is an he's an unreliable person he goes further and says that in 2007 or rather a case in 2007 um and also a case in 2006 there was an incident wherein the applicant could not be circulated or rather there was a circulation because the applicant could not be found. I do not find this to be relevant to this particular aail application on the basis that first this is something which happened a very long time ago and further to that in 2012 the applicant was in court tried or rather he pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and one of reckless driving and he was sentenced that particular situation fell away it is not relevant because if indeed he was circulated as it has been a by the investigating officer in paragraph 46.5 then they would have actually rearrested him and placed him uh on trial in relation to those particular circulation and no such thing has ever happened. So that cannot find any relevance in relation to this particular pain application.

[00:24:18]The probability that you will have scored it is it is not there at all. And what I like your worship is that investigations in this matter are complete. That is in paragraph 51 of the investigating officers.

[00:24:33]There are no outstanding suspects. The matter is trial ready. there are no outstanding investigations which perhaps the state can say they are worried that he will interfere with those particular investigations. So there is nothing which is which we can say that the applicant can actually influence and in fact when we look at ballistics evidence and the other evidence which has been allegedly collected by the by the state it is now in the state's custody and there is no inclination that the applicant can actually try and manipulate or influence that particular evidence and prior to that most of the investig I mean the witnesses if one has regard to the investigating officer statement they are members of the police most of their witnesses so there is no way one can say that the applicant can undermine behind the rule of law or the functioning of the bail system that's alerted by the by the investigating officer in paragraph 42 48.2. Now in 48 the investigating officer mentions this issue of an attempted bribe or whatever that is neither here or there because in his own affidavity also further says that when he asked the applicant said uh information needless to say that the applicant denies ever offering anything for bribe because when one looks at the bribe the applicant would have actually said blatant or if there was any intention to bribe the applicant would have blatantly said can I give you money so that you can actually give me back that is now an attempt to bribe. So there was no offer which was made by the applicant in this matter. Which is why this particular issue in relation to a bribe was never even taken further by the investigating officer in this matter. The investigating officer in this matter is a canelon. Someone who is highly ranked. He understands what is a criminal offense. He has been dealing with criminal offenses for over years as indicated in the in the in the in the academic. So if he felt or rather if there was an attempt and he believes that this particular attempt was reared or rather there was an intention and there was unlawfulness he would have actually taken it upon himself to immediately arrest the or rather charge the applicant in this matter with a further charge over and above what he has already been charged with. So this particular amendment in relation to this it is just one of those particular elements which are basically being placed before the court to create this particular impression that the applicant is an unreliable person.

[00:26:45]The worship will note further that my colleague dealt with the principles of ramen as kitt.

[00:26:54]What is important just to place on record is paragraph 11 of that particular congressional court decision which reads as follows. I quote furthermore a bail hearing is an is a unique judicial function also although bail like the trial is essentially adversar the inquisitorial powers of the presiding officers are greater. An important point to note here about bail proceedings is so self-evident that it is often overlooked. It is that there is a fundamental difference between the objective of bail proceedings and that of the trial. In a bail application, the inquiry is not really concerned with the question of guilt. That is the task of the trial court. In a bail application, the inquiry is not really concerned with a question of guilt. That is the task of the trial court. The court hearing the bail application is concerned with the question of possible guilt only to the extent that it may bear on on where the interest of justice lie in regard to bail. The focus of the bail the focus at the at the bail stage is to decide whether the interest of justice permit the release of the accused person pending trial and that entails the main uh protecting the investigation and prosecution of the case against hindrance. This basically when we look at this part a particular quotation is that is there any hindrance protecting the investigation based on the investigating officer's own statement there is no hindrance whatsoever that may result in relation to granting bail to the applicant in this matter will further note that this particular principle relating to bail has been dealt with on many occasions and I just want to highlight that there is also the principles as enunciated in the state versus parties case.

[00:28:40]Now I wish to also highlight the case of S versus DL and another is a 2013 volume 2 SR 85 at paragraph 14 where Ubushi J stated as follows. I quote a court cannot find that the refusal of bail is in the interest of justice merely because there is a risk or possibility that one or more of the consequences mentioned in section 60 sub4 will result. The court must not grope in the dark and speculate a finding on the probabilities must be made unless it cannot unless it can be found that one or more of the consequences will probably occur. Detention of the accused is not in the interest of justice and the accused should be released. Close quote. Now what this case basically confirms is that we do not have to look at this issue in relation to a flight risk as one of the elements or rather determining factor whether bail should be granted or not. We should look at all the personal circumstances, all everything that that is before the court and the court in determining wherever there is any likelihood that the applicant will evade bay must look at his personal circumstances, the seriousness of the charges, his family ties. Those are the the the aspects that needs that the court needs to actually uh look at and your worshipper. The principles in relation to bay have been provided for in section 60 subsection 1A which states as follows. I quote, "An accused who is in custody in respect of an offense shall subject to the provisions of of section 50 subsection 6 be entitled to be released on bail at any stage preceding his or her conviction in respect of such offense if the court is satisfied that the interest of justice so permit and close quote and those particular principles they have been tested in section 60 subsection 4 A to E. In closing, I would like to just agitate the s versus brown case which principle states as follows. I quote, "A bail application is not a trial. The prosecution is not required to close every loophole at the state of proceedings. However, a factor favorable favoring bail is whether the appellent has established a defense which has a reasonable prospect of success at the at the trial. Now when we look at that in conjunction with the fact that the state reliance on this particular evidence, the witness, the cameras without turning this particular court in a mini trial, I submit to that the submissions which have been made by the investigating officer relating to the the strength in the state case should actually be looked at objectively.

[00:31:23]And when we look at that particular evidence or rather submissions which have been made objectively one will note that they are in direct contrast with the with the evidence which has been submitted by the applicant in his in his aid. Now I wanted to go to an AR 02 but may I just an A02 to the investigating officer statement but before I do so I beg just to approach the applicant in the in relation to this matter. Again the sister is there is listen I can go on and on but what I'm trying to say is what the investigating officer has done when he submitted this particular document is to confirm to the court that the applicant has strong family ties in the republic of South Africa that is what I'm trying to highlight and this is not information that came with the applicant in this matter irrespective of the issue of the or whatever but we have a person who is South African the family tree is where the the parents the investigating officers are where and there's addresses if the court can note this particular people there's addresses of those particular relatives of the applicant in this matter and none of those particular address is an address outside the republic of South Africa as I close is there a possibility that the applicant will even try I submit that no is there a possibility that the applicant will influence the investigation I submit no are the charges against applicant in this matter serious I submit no circumstances leadership which have been placed before the court are more favorable to the applicant in this matter. The applicant did not commit such a heinous crime wherein people were killed. No one died.

[00:33:02]What will he be running away from?

[00:33:05]We've seen serious offenses where people are charged with robbery aggravating circumstances, charged with six offenses, premeditated murder, but the court still finds that this particular person provided that they have submitted exceptional circumstances, they still are being committed to bail. Now, this particular applicant in this matter facing such less serious offenses, why would he run away from this offenses?

[00:33:28]and further to the submission by council that bail is within the the bail amount is within the prerogative of the applicant. I further submit your worship that the court should also h be considerate of the personal circumstances of the applicant when the bill amount is considered on the on the basis that he says he can be able to afford 10,000 rand any exorbitant amount your h in light of the personal circumstances can be tantamount to a refusal of pay considering that this is what he says he can actually afford and as I'm still on my feet the court should be mindful of the fact that the wife of the or those in the investigating officers affidavit in paragraph 40 of the affidavit he says that the applicant is never married. The court is mindful of the recognition of the customary marriages act and the applicant and the wife have both under oath indicated that they are married in terms of that particular customs. So which is the reason why in paragraph 40 the investigating officer did not find any records of the applicant in this matter.

[00:34:36]In paragraph 49 the investigating officer says that the public interest or rather says the public order will be undermined on the basis that the applicant frequently makes social media comments and posts as well as mainstream media statements. That is one of the reasons that he indicates as the basis for bail being denied. I'm not sure if what is being insinuated here is that the applicant must refrain from exercising his freedom of speech which is a right enshrined in the constitution of the Republic of South Africa because such a limit will be unconstitutional and making public statements doesn't necessarily mean that it will undermine public order. So that particular submission is unfounded subject to the uh submissions by the state. Uh I believe that that that is all that we have to submit at the stage on behalf of the applicant in this letter. It's got business.

[00:35:29]>> Yes.

[00:35:37]>> Correct.

[00:35:39]>> That is correct. I'll take you according to >> in fact it was forward to me and it was provided by me to the investigating officer and in the investigating officer statement he says he followed the pin and on the left he found this particular property >> that is the correct pin. Yes.

[00:36:00]There is no dispute regarding the house and in fact the pictures as they have been attached by the investigating officer are the same pictures that uh even though he did not indicate it in the affidavit I also forwarded him similar pictures uh I'm not sure about the date but uh I forwarded similar pictures might it might have been on the on the Monday when we were here in court but similar pictures were forwarded to the investigating Thank you.

[00:36:33]application.

[00:36:35]Uh it is only cost that produce the fund application and in sh is on the applicant that you must charge to uh satisfy the honorable court that it will be justice if the applicant is I will start off with ex that is That is a statement of the architect wherein he applied for for B um he made mention of the address of 44 54 and again in exhibit C paragraph 9 he insist that there's no problem of the address there's no issue of the Yes.

[00:37:37]Can you worship? Sorry.

[00:37:40]The uh when we move further, we look at the lecture on there's an anure of uh the bura city traditional council.

[00:37:55]The address has been given there is 44 54.

[00:38:05]And when the police have visited the address, they find the address which is uh on exhibit B.

[00:38:18]The photographs that are marked as exhibit uh ar this is presented to the application it doesn't say no no no no this is the house you in fact went to a house this is not the house you want the applicant to be saying instruction President he to go to another address which is now to D where now we have to investigating officer the area once and In exhibit B, A R01 is attached to which is the list 44 5 when we then look at Judaism 44 54 4 and we contrast it with exhibit A paragraph 5.5 it's 44 54 it's the same as now one would ask themselves is this all the mistake is a mistake that the police addresses Um not quite because when we go to fib D where when the address when the investigating class what is the address of this and then I'll prepare the for1 ZD where the uh wife of the You can say she immediately in fact the Bible says she immediately told me that the number is 45 44.

[00:40:57]Now does the lease agreement exist?

[00:41:05]The answer is no.

[00:41:09]Because the investigating officer had gone to This is for the secret and this also according to executive the investigative accord to 4544.

[00:41:30]Now we then move to others that are attached on exhibit D.

[00:41:42]Now this property is registered under 80 and we then look at the AR 01 01 I'm sorry and uh it indicates that this landlord is out of suppose So it is clear that this product the uh these are two different products and um and the confirmation of the of the chief to say that he is in fact saying that 44 54 is also incorrect. Is the chief also sufficient confirm there's no state this has been done by we also this is the statement where Um this uh connection with the statement of the wife of the applicant she mentions the same.

[00:43:31]Now the question is uh how then do we know that the applicant is in fact saying that the address that he is that is it must bear in mind that the motion to end up responding to what he was saying by uh my lady colleagues before this court is that uh the applicant holds a view that they are not infectious um Also the millions are available at my final commission and as well as commission but when the applicant was making it he was just he was not a suspect or an accused person and before this court he is appearing as an applicant in practice an accused Now when the investigating officer calls him trying to obtain a warning statement from him, he's available.

[00:45:07]If the other record can look at the B and look at um paragraph 16 up to 90 in that I want statement from and this letter in activity is going into he was not sure whether this might but he can easily go to police station and independent you are saying that you're police officer I am this police station it's not So that it is it is an executive that he is in fact in frontless because he knew that he is now in trouble. So he must avoid the police as much as he can.

[00:46:25]And in the matter of force where he is the complainant, the incident took place on the 3rd of November 2025.

[00:46:41]He gives his statement to an attention so that when he's should be easily contacted the only place that this is um attached to the ship exhibit B01 at the time when he was contacted by the police. He was aware that the police have now established that it was not a witness.

[00:47:47]It is upon the completion of the investigation that the investigative office again of justice was in March. Um we also fit to K to D.

[00:48:16]It's a it has a lot of exhibit but I I have found it on exhibit on exhibit D is paragraph AI it would be on paragraph it's on paragraph Yeah.

[00:49:06]I think it be 13.

[00:49:18]Um, the of the investigative officer also indicates that at some stage the uh applicant made some that he then concluded that.

[00:49:37]Uh I submit that that in itself shows that he may interfere with the administration of justice.

[00:50:00]and was also indicated before that CCTV and Venezuela's state witness. It is hard to say witness. It's witnesses and it was further submitted before that the issue of the situation is neither here.

[00:50:37]uh the state submit definitely in that submission in that there was an effort from the community.

[00:50:46]they had to secure uh to be able to get hold of you.

[00:50:52]Therefore, he is admitted that the gun is in fact when it comes to a person being the circulation is related to the police to obtain the no. Um the issue of the situation is the issue uh in about the previous that for the police to try and get hold of him they had to circulate because it was not easy they were unable to get hold of that's why I proceed Um the worship is also being indicated to this final report that the strength of the state is is weak.

[00:52:11]with that being a sufficient witness.

[00:52:19]So he saw the car being stopped and a the person was sliding from it by few shots towards and at the time was he was alone was not enough and the CC also indicates that there was had t the applicant at the time his car was the only I would also want to submit that the reason that the J50 was authorized and issued was because the state was unable to get uh the applicant um because at the time when the investigating officer had gone to Maju and uh pointed to his place of business, the investigating officer was only looking for it is then upon realizing that it is not possible for them to get hold of him so between a lawyer for was then applied for and it was then authorized by legis.

[00:54:04]Now the only time moment that was uh that was available for the uh state or the the police officers to arrest the applicant. It was only after we had justified because at the time the state didn't know where because when you look at it exhibit Bit the uh there are a number of addresses there which were visited by the investigative officer but could not get hold of personate.

[00:54:49]Um those that appear on the profile there was no >> there was no address the address was the address was only given during the When the police officer arrived or the president address the time when the investigating officer was charging there was no address that was given that the investigating officer was able to verify from that point of The address you worship the address the 44 and the 54 is on the same um it's on the same stage.

[00:56:01]I just want to report to D.

[00:56:10]D1 there is 44 uh 44 54 unit 80.

[00:56:28]And when one goes to The utility bill which appears on the statement which is marked as a RO um five different street is according to this is uh more close.

[00:57:06]So it's so it is not Um, it was also argued before this report that the u the charges that the applicant is facing are not serious and uh it was further indicated that they do not carry any minimum sentences.

[00:57:52]The worship I have to differ with the the submission one looks at the uh the chute count one which is unlawful possession of firearm.

[00:58:05]The ocean is arrived together with 51 with section 512 of the law in April 5 of 1997.

[00:58:16]Therefore, it does and it was further argued that there's no indication as to whether the firearm that was used is while the state is alleged one and will then prove to so that the I submit that the the is that apparent is facing and further to that I submit that the discharge on court to case basis uh state it's a 1991 case For one, SAC 464 where Judge Hler J held at page 4 63 paragraph E to F open code having considered to the authorities more particular 61.3 SA 468D state versus 1980 44, SA 94, WLD and S versus Williams 1991, SA uh 171 ZA. I am satisfied that for the applicant to succeed in this application there is there is an honest according to show on the balance of the communities uh that the interest of justice will not be treated as I sub that if the report is worth of the view that the that the charity follows I will submit that when it comes to pay.

[01:00:35]It has been suggested by my colleague that the amount that uh applicant can afford is an amount of 10,000.

[01:00:45]I disagree with the amount my submission my counter submission that is that an appropriate amount uh would then be at 100,000.

[01:01:01]the ocean is much better and further to the uh conditions um if the court transfer. The condition then should then be that the uh he must report at the police station and uh he must hand over his passport that would be that with regard to conditions.

[01:01:30]It was also argued about the jurisdiction.

[01:01:41]This is a regional country and the states does have jurisdiction to decide this matter whether the matter is so it is within the region How did he worship? It is indeed so that the defense were not informed as to why was it not to translate um I don't think that at this stage they will be informed as to why to um if I may just this Permission was ask that the matter should in fact be brought to so that uh if the matter proceeds the trial can be finalized as quickly as possible unless the honorable court In a nutshell, your wish is still open.

[01:03:26]I don't like that after the incident. He never reported was that after 10 minutes of submitting.

[01:04:00]So I think that there was no case open um there was a case that was open by the police. The police open the case because of what he told and the case was not any further.

[01:04:18]>> The case was reporting the >> Yes. And then the police then register.

[01:04:38]Should I maybe give uh one or two aspects to or should Identify the two is energy.

[01:05:21]So this is what we have three that is When he was traced to obtain a woman statement, he still didn't relate to case number 39.

[01:05:56]when he was placed to obtain a statement.

[01:06:00]>> One statement state of the place that came And this is half the investigations.

[01:06:54]Was there any fire unfound in position of the applicant? PPS where?

[01:07:00]>> Answer is no.

[01:07:14]Um, you should determine what you ask.

[01:07:16]It's fine. It's good enough.

[01:07:41]Thank you.

[01:07:58]in this case.

[01:08:04]>> The applicant is not specific.

[01:08:11]It's a used medicine that were found at the scene of the crime.

[01:08:32]They had related to these two cases.

[01:08:35]That is So I can confirm >> according to Electric destruction.

[01:09:38]witness.

[01:10:04]Heat. Heat.

[01:10:24]Heat. Heat.

[01:10:46]Heat. Heat.

[01:11:42]addressed this man close to us.

[01:11:46]>> Um the worshiper the investigative professor was there and he the business but I don't think there was no inquiry about the address of the business but the business knows I also Heat.

[01:12:31]Heat.

[01:12:54]I quickly approached the accused as Heat.

[01:13:15]Heat.

[01:13:23]Heat.

[01:13:41]Heat.

[01:13:47]Heat.

[01:14:06]Heat.

[01:14:27]Thank you for your worship.

[01:14:30]You worship the issue of the address. We we have visited on numerous occasions and I submit that it has been resolved. The wrong address emanates from the lease agreement that the applicant entered into. It is not of his own accord but this was the address that was made available. Now, if the court looks at Alex Chadi, which is the supplementary affidavit that was written by the investigating officer, A R02, there's a photo there. It's photo number 10.

[01:15:18]If the court looks at photo number 10, there's a jacket. It's it's that jacket that made waves from the Madanga Commission at one point or another it ended up being a meme. It's the same jacket that was worn by the applicant in the Masala proceedings. Now this is the jacket that is found at the now correct address which is 4544. I submit that it is not in dispute that the applicant resides at the right address. The remainder of whether it's a 44, it's a 45, it's a 54. Those are trivial issues.

[01:15:49]where he resides has been established.

[01:15:51]Now the state says that the applicant deliberately wanted to mislead it or rather not provide the correct address.

[01:15:58]There's a pin that was shared and there's a business address that the investigating officer also knows about.

[01:16:06]Now on those two aspects alone and not looking at the other issues in completion, there is no way that one would have this and also at deliberate.

[01:16:16]The instruction is that both these streets that have been mentioned by the state are actually one goes in another direction and the other one goes in another direction. Sadly, there's a photo that hasn't been discovered and it contains a street sign which has got one street on this side and that street on this side. Hence the submission that they are minutes apart from each other.

[01:16:38]That is a difference that is not material and the applicant ought not be denied bail on those reasons.

[01:16:48]Now your worship the the the state further says that the applicant is a flight risk because he he was not available to give a warning statement.

[01:16:57]He was sought he could not be found. The applicant has explained to the court that these engagements fell in the time frame where he had to go and appear before the commission. He was also uncertain as to whether or not this person that was calling him is a police officer. There were issues of safety that were of concern to the applicant.

[01:17:17]Now, further to the state makes reference to circulation. I believe it was in 2002 where the applicant was sought and that the court draws an inference that he's a flight risk because he was put in circulation. That issue has been dealt with. As the matter stands now, the applicant before court is not being sought for anything. He's not circulated for anything. The IO himself says that in his affidavit that he went to the place of residence and could not get him for a warning statement and these are submissions that are made by the state. Now what then becomes obvious is that where he resided has always been common knowledge.

[01:18:02]It's it's it's being evasive or difficult in not wanting to accept that there is an address and he can be found in the hope that the applicant will be denied bail. This is the demonstration of how this is being conducted. The state further alleges that he was arrested only after he had testified at the Mazanga commission. When he went to Majanga, he had attendees of record. If the state really wanted the applicant, they could have communicated with the attendees and found him. And when they arrested him, members of the media were present, meaning that they also had knowledge that the arrest was to take place. My submission is that that was not somebody who was evading who was caught because he was at that time on that particular day. The whole intention of that exercise was to embarrass Mr. Mkhoi. Now your worship further the state says that in the event that court grants bail an amount of 100,000 rand is reasonable. I wish to reiterate that Mr. Mosi said in his papers that he makes 32,000 rand that's his salary. That's what he earns and those type of amounts would would be unjust and it would be unreasonable given his social economic circumstances. That's the court of Jesus.

[01:19:16]I will not be long. Your worship will remember that we supplemented our papers and when we supplemented our papers there was a screenshot which was attached to the supplementary affidavit.

[01:19:24]a particular screenshot which has the pin location that was sent to the investigating officer. If we look at the screenshot, the pin is on Mushu Street.

[01:19:33]If we look closely to that particular screenshot, it's on Mushu Street, that particular pin. Then when we look at the second attachment where it shows the location of the actual house, even though the number is different, it shows Mohat Mohatra close. That is in relation to the pin that was provided to the investigating office. I'm not sure if the court is able to because it's it's in black and white but I have it in color which is the reason why I can actually be able to see that there's a strict name which is Mu Mushu on the pin that was sent to the investigating officer and then on the screenshot with the house with the actual house it's Muhat on the bottom uh it's it's it's it's 4545 and then there on the bottom on the bottom of the screenshot I'm not sure if it appears will be five.

[01:20:23]>> Yes, I think it's five and six there.

[01:20:26]>> Yes. Then six on the bottom. Bottom.

[01:20:28]Right from the bottom.

[01:20:31]>> Unless if the screenshot did not number six is Mala.

[01:20:37]>> It's Mata Close.

[01:20:39]>> No. I'm just seeing maybe because of there is this um error on top at my >> not not I see the arrow you're washing but on the right at the bottom where there's also 2 years ago the picture taken 2 years ago on the bottom bottom >> why 45 >> that's correct that's correct that is the name of the state the screenshot it's from the same pin location and then uh I've listened to the state that at the mad commission the applicant was appearing as witness and now he has been sought after as a suspect. But on the third of March when the investigating officer went to his house, he did not know that he was a suspect.

[01:21:23]And even if he knew that he was a suspect and he had any reason to actually evade or want to evade, then he would have disappeared and no longer appeared at the Madanga Commission because it is public knowledge that he was going to appear on the date of his arrest. Because if we are saying that he was trying to evade the arrest or giving the winning statement to the investigative office, if he knew on the 3 of March that he's been sought after and he doesn't want to cooperate with the police, then he would have decided that I'm no longer even going to attend this particular commissions cuz now I'm already aware that there's a winning statement that needs to be obtained or there's an eminent arrest by the state or by the police. Then he would have decided to stay away. So that argument does not stand. Now the issue regarding the statement and the giving of or rather the failure to provide information. He made that particular statement with the advice of his attendees who were representing him. The fact that he took 10 days before he submitted a statement cannot be an an indictment on the applicant in this matter. It is clear that he indicated that he was in hiding that is also in the investigating officer statement and he did the statement through the attorney. So that particular point that he took long perhaps an adverse inflence should actually be drawn in relation to this particular time frame is baseless.

[01:22:39]That is why I have to submit this case.

[01:22:40]Please only the issue of the commission. I think Michael he cannot she cannot say that that jacket is that the applicant was um the other thing is then that it is not correct that the investigative officer went to the place where the African state he did not know who places he only went to the business and I've also I've also noted My colleague have now changed that these numbers they are not on the same state because it was submitted.

[01:23:30]This report it was informed that these numbers are on the same state and now my colleague is now showing the report about the pill and and indicating that it is black and white. But earlier on I could have said that this number Can we in order?

[01:24:00]>> The date is in order.

[01:24:02]>> Tomorrow is tomorrow.

[01:24:17]>> I was actually looking at Next week.

[01:24:22]We were just excited to worship some time.

[01:24:43]I'm not sure.

[01:24:49]I think applicant want to say something else. Thank you.

[01:25:13]Thank you. Worship your worship defer.

[01:25:26]Mr. Please postpone to the 4th of June for courting.

[01:25:31]>> You are in custody. Mr. >> Thank you.

[01:25:37]>> All right.