No MORE Madlanga Commission, for now: Witness G testifies in secret

Añadido: 2026-05-08

[00:00:00]This week, the Madanga Commission may be hearing the biggest, most secret testimony ever heard at the commission so far, and we won't be part of it. What happens when a single witness forces the entire commission into silence? Not delays, not adjournments, but full secrecy because that is exactly what has just happened.

[00:00:22]>> Witness G, are you can you hear me? Can you hear us?

[00:00:27]>> I can hear you.

[00:00:29]Advocate uh Chazen, just so you aware, you are still audible to the public.

[00:00:37]>> Oh, well then we we we need to >> Yeah. Can we cut the Zoom? It can you please cut the link?

[00:00:44]>> A crime intelligence officer known only as witness G has taken the stand. But this is not a normal witness. This is a handler linked to crime intelligence operatives. someone believed to sit inside the network of agents and informants within South Africa's policing system. And from the very beginning of this testimony, one thing became clear. This evidence could not stay fully in public view. Within hours of proceedings starting on day 100 of the commission, everything changed.

[00:01:16]Commissioners were moved out of the main hearing room, the one that we usually watch on TV. The public was kept on audio only access with distorted voices and parts of the testimony were completely shut down. They were moved into full in camera mode meaning the public hears nothing delayed not summarized not lightly redacted nothing.

[00:01:41]>> Good morning again we are starting now.

[00:01:44]Thank you Mr. Chaskson.

[00:01:47]>> So witness G. And I ask you um wherever possible to to read the contents of paragraphs 44 onwards.

[00:01:56]Uh but if you feel that you just don't want to read the contents, you just want to confirm the contents of any particular paragraph. Uh please feel free to do so.

[00:02:08]>> I'm not going to read it into the record. You identify who am I? I can just confirm that the contents of these paragraphs are correct from 44 to 54.

[00:02:22]>> Thank you.

[00:02:23]>> And now the warning from inside the commission is even more serious. We may not see full public access to this testimony or possibly parts of the Malanga Commission itself for days, maybe even longer. And what witness G is allegedly connected to goes straight into the heart of crime intelligence operations, informant handling systems, political interference claims, and a name that keeps resurfacing over and over and over again. Brown Modi >> paragraph 36 you speak to a meeting that you had with myself a commission investigator and although you don't mention it council for Mr. Mhorti, you have uh put the date of that meeting as on or about December 2025.

[00:03:21]Can I ask you to confirm that it in fact took place on 17 November 2025?

[00:03:29]>> I can confirm that my memory council.

[00:03:34]>> Thank you. Um otherwise can you uh confirm that paragraph and paragraphs 37 to 40 when you do when you discuss your the chronology of your interactions uh with the commission. So can you confirm the correctness of 30 paragraphs 36 to 40 where you deal with the your interactions with the commission?

[00:04:06]Um, sorry, witness, we we it wasn't your answer wasn't clear.

[00:04:13]>> I'm saying I'm reading through.

[00:04:18]>> Yes, I do confirm.

[00:04:22]>> Thank you.

[00:04:23]Brown Motzi is a man described as everything from a spy-like informant to a political fixer to what some witnesses have called a professional fabricator of intelligence narratives. And now he's expected to be directly pulled into witness G's evidence. Not indirectly, not speculatively, directly. And this is where the commission stops being procedural and starts becoming deeply secretive. And it's not because it's a fault of their own. This is because witness G is not an ordinary witness.

[00:04:57]He's believed to be a crime intelligence officer, meaning that he's not necessarily someone we should know, and he allegedly manages agents and informants inside operational structures. This means three key things.

[00:05:10]First, he's part of a system that operates through handlers and controlled contacts. Second, he's tied to confidential intelligence networks, meaning names, operations, and methods are highly sensitive. Third, his testimony cannot be separated from the structure of crime intelligence itself.

[00:05:30]And that is exactly why his identity is being protected under a strict ruling issued by the commission. And I have to stress this. I keep saying his and he, but it's not even clear what gender the person is. So the ruling from the commission says that witness G cannot be identified. No information that reveals his identity can be disclosed and entire sections must be heard in camera and disclosure carries strict prohibition.

[00:05:59]Even more extreme, if questions risk exposure of identity, the public feed is shut down instantly. And that's exactly what happened today.

[00:06:08]I regard the paragraphs as correct the commission. I can't read them alone.

[00:06:14]They've got people's names that are attached to me.

[00:06:18]Um we are going to have a difficulty here because once I get to to questioning I have to ask questions about your relationship to these people uh and Mr. Mhort's relationship to these people. It's not uh I think we need to resolve this issue now rather than when we get to the intrusive questioning because I'm certainly going to ask you about these people.

[00:06:46]Um, and so, so I think the commission needs to make a ruling as to whether we go completely into camera hearings or or whether because because most of my questioning at a later stage is going to deal if these are issues that we cannot mention publicly, then most of my questioning is going to touch on issues that we cannot mention publicly.

[00:07:19]>> When witness G started testifying, the questioning began normally. Evidence leader Matthew Chuskson SC began with structured verification. So it was dates of crime intelligence positions, appointment timelines, meetings with commission investigators as well as the commission's legal team. Up to that point, everything was procedural, it was controlled, and it was predictable. But then something happened. Charles Skullson moved into more sensitive material, security concerns that justified off camera proceedings.

[00:07:52]Witness G confirmed them. Then came the turning point and that turning point was paragraph 44 onwards of his statement.

[00:08:01]This is where things changed because this section involved suspicious deaths, alleged assassination attempts, internal operational conflicts, crime intelligence linked events. And at that moment, the tone of the hearing shifted completely. Chascalson requested that the sections be read into the record, but witness G refused to read certain portions out loud due to identity risks.

[00:08:26]Instead, he confirmed them. That means you and I did not hear what is contained in those statements and that created the first major tension inside the commission. How do you interrogate intelligence evidence when naming anything risks exposing the witness?

[00:08:42]Then came paragraphs 56 to 62 and this is where the structure began to collapse completely because witness G said something critical. He said he cannot read the material publicly because it contains names attached to him operationally. That is the exact phrase used. Names attached to him not theory not speculation. These are operational links. And at that moment, the evidence leader warned, "If questioning continues in that direction, everything must go fully in camera. That means it must be closed to the public completely." And that's exactly what happened.

[00:09:22]>> Mr. Mala, do do you want to say anything on this?

[00:09:27]I'm sure I think it maybe as well to perhaps um establish the how the how some of these names could um reveal his identity. So I think perhaps and I know that the the adjunments are are very tiring but I think it might be an exercise we need to do um just to so that we have a list of things of of of people that should not be mentioned. If if we have to do it that way.

[00:10:02]>> Yeah.

[00:10:04]Witness G. Um the idea was to have uh some of your evidence and my understanding that a substantial part of it by uh everybody by the public. Um now as it is we are close to what half in fact we are beyond the halfway mark and uh you do not agree to state publicly what's in your statement. This is getting uh problematic. Um let me just have a just confer very quickly with my co-commissioners and see how to how to resolve this. But uh my inclination at this stage is that we should not get to a point where your entire statement is basically in camera.

[00:10:59]So everything is in full is fully in camera. But I'll I'll quickly confer with my with my co commissioners.

[00:11:09]>> Later on, commission spokesperson Jeremy Michaels confirmed something important.

[00:11:14]He said this was not a planned collapse but a practical breakdown. Uh the intention was to hear part of Witness G's testimony um in camera in or should I say off camera but in public in the sense that witness G's voice uh would have been heard um and therefore the testimony and then as the testimony unfolded I think uh it became clear that this was just not going to work practically.

[00:11:51]>> He said the technical constraints made full public hearings impossible.

[00:11:56]Commissioners could not remain in the auditorium for example. The structure of alternating open and closed testimony also failed. Then the system became impractical in real time and most importantly the commission had to abandon its hybrid transparency model for this witness. And that's important because it's about witness safety, but also the safety of the people that the witness will be talking about. So this means what started as partially public testimony became fully restricted in sections. But Michaels also admitted something deeper. The commission still wants public transparency. But it may not be possible for all evidence. And this is where the concern grows because there are still multiple witnesses waiting to testify. The commission has a lot on its plate. Uh we the burden is quite heavy in terms of the testimony that is still to come. There's a very very long list of witnesses still to come. Um of course I wish that you know we could share the detail with you but there are major security considerations.

[00:13:06]Uh but I can tell you for sure that the list of witnesses to come is is quite long and so we are under huge pressure.

[00:13:16]The more time we lose the more the pressure. Um and I think we have seen last week we lost uh a day last Wednesday. Um again, you know, arising from complications with uh the witness uh challenging um the chief evidence leader.

[00:13:36]>> According to my counting and the counting of others who've been watching the commission closely, that could be over 30 people who still need to come as witnesses or to give their statements to the commission. So, how will that work?

[00:13:50]Could they also possibly use this moment to ask for fully in camera hearings?

[00:13:55]Well, we don't know, but we'll have to find out. In the meantime, you can make your guess in the comments section. Do you think this issue will cause others to demand anonymity as well? Let me know your thoughts on that in the comments section and remember to subscribe to the channel. Also, hit that notification bell so that you know when I go live or when I load a video.

[00:14:19]Now we get to the most politically sensitive name. Brown Mahudzi, a Northwest businessman, a self-described crime intelligence informant. A man who claims long-term intelligence involvement stretching back to the late 1990s.

[00:14:32]>> Because I said I am an agent in circumstances when in executing my duties, I have to lie. Now he come to the people to the public and say I'm a professional liar.

[00:14:48]H knowing that I told him if I execute my duties, I do give a certain impression to to to uh to to reach or to get to the bottom of what of the miss what the mission wants.

[00:15:08]>> In his testimony, Moti described himself as a spy in our language, but he said he's a contact agent. He said he was recruited into crime intelligence in 1999 under Handlas. He says he was later transitioned into a contact agent in 2009 and he still considers himself linked to intelligence structures. He has also claimed links to Vietmatala.

[00:15:32]Mhodi has described himself as somebody who fights crime and corruption. He says that he was an SAPS informant and then later moved to contact agent which is a higher level of this type of intelligence work. He says he reports to handlers. But here's the critical tension. Those claims have been directly challenged in proceedings. Evidence leader Matthew Charles Carlson has questioned the credibility of that evidence. Even at one point calling Moti a professional liar because his job requires it. She said I'm bringing allegations. I'm talking about people allegation that I make I cannot provide proof. That is my job commissioners. An agent is not a policeman who will obtain statements that can be presented here. I will give I give intelligence information which must be converted into evidence which the commission wants.

[00:16:32]And how will that be converted information information be converted?

[00:16:36]It's when I bring people again who will corroborate what I'm saying to become the evidence that the commission wants.

[00:16:45]>> It would seem Mosi is not a big fan of Chason's questioning because he has now attempted a legal recusal application in response. He wants Chasen to be removed as his evidence leader. And now enters witness G into this entire equation.

[00:17:02]Because witness G is expected to address whether Mui was ever a legitimate intelligence operative, whether he was an informant, and whether he was a contact agent, whether he had handlers, whether his operational claims match internal records, and whether his spy narrative aligns with the actual truth.

[00:17:24]Crime intelligence structures. This is no longer Moti speaking about himself.

[00:17:29]This is a crime intelligence insider being asked to verify or dismantle these claims made by Moti.

[00:17:37]>> Now, do you consider an oath to be binding on your conscience?

[00:17:42]>> I consider it commissioner.

[00:17:46]But in the affidavit I've referred to, you told a lie and you took an oath well knowing that part of the content of that affidavit was a lie. Correct.

[00:17:59]>> Correct. But I was on duty in executing my duties commissioner. But it's correct that as you saw as you took the oath you knew even as you took the oath that you were lying in that affidavit. Correct.

[00:18:17]>> Correct. To achieve the objective of the mission commission.

[00:18:20]>> But it's correct that you took the oath knowing that you are lying.

[00:18:23]>> True. Commissioner >> Mkhot's prior testimony has already created controversy. He has alleged that there is intelligence infiltration of SAPS structures. his alleged political interference at senior policing levels.

[00:18:37]He's even made claims that King Mrs. Zulu and Inlamanazi are CIA operatives.

[00:18:43]He has also been linked to discourse involving Vousi Kat Matala as well as police minister who's currently on special leave Senzkunu. And he's also been involved in broader SAPS procurement controversies. So whether these claims are true or inflated is exactly what the commission is trying to find out. The public may not see large portions of the next phase in real time, only redacted outputs later or summaries in the final report. At the center of everything is not just witness G. It is what witness G represents. A crime intelligence system where identity protection overrides transparency.

[00:19:23]Operational secrecy limits public scrutiny and intelligence linked witnesses cannot fully testify in public view. And that raises a deeper issue. If intelligence witnesses cannot be fully heard publicly, how much of the truth is actually visible right now? But at the same time, is a public hearing worth risking the witness's life and the lives of other people implicated or mentioned in that witness's testimony? Let me know your thoughts on that in the comments section and remember to subscribe to the channel. Also, hit that notification bell so that you know when I go live or when I load a video.

[00:20:02]What we are witnessing now is not just testimony. It is a structural breakdown in how the inquiry processes intelligence evidence in real time.

[00:20:13]Witness G has not just testified. He has triggered a procedural shift that may affect the entire remainder of the Madanga Commission. And somewhere inside that sealed testimony sits a set of answers tied to crime intelligence handlers, operational networks, and Brown Mohood's disputed intelligence identity. Whether those answers will ever fully reach the public remains unknown, but one thing is already clear.

[00:20:41]After day 100 of the Malanga Commission, nothing about this inquiry continues in the same way. So much has changed over time, and I can almost guarantee so much more will change. While that happens, make sure that if you enjoyed this breakdown, you share it with as many people as you can, and I'll continue to follow the process as it continues. But for today, that's it. Thank you for watching and I'll see you next