BALOYI SLAMS BROWN MOGOTSI’S LAWYER

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Maybe maybe before you you continue um if you look at uh page 76, paragraph 8.2, that is the evidence Mr. Chaskalson's uh affidavit.

[00:00:16]And in there, that's the answering affidavit.

[00:00:20]>> Yes, yes, commissioner.

[00:00:21]>> 8.2, he says the suggestion that Mr. Mkhwebane could provide evidence the suggestion that Mr. Mkhwebane could provide evidence against Mr. Karim first came from Mr. Mkhwebane himself unsolicited by me. That's what Mr. Chaskalson says.

[00:00:44]Then you look at how Mr. Mkhwebane deals with that in his replying affidavit.

[00:00:51]It's quite It you'll find it at page 264.

[00:00:55]It's quite a lengthy It's quite a lengthy response. It goes from paragraph 22 up to 29.

[00:01:05]But in all of that, he does not deny uh that he's the one that approached Mr. Chaskalson with an offer to provide information about Mr. Karim.

[00:01:18]And in your exchange with the chairperson, I understand you in in your own way to be to not be disputing that's how this started.

[00:01:29]Now, if if that is the case, and and we have to accept that is the case because in the replying affidavit it's not denied. So, Mr. Mr. Chaskalson's word on it uh would be the last word on it.

[00:01:44]Now, if if that is what happened, how is it a problem or even a ground for a complaint that finds a recusal application that they then continue conversations about Mr. Karim.

[00:02:03]How can it be?

[00:02:07]Can the commissioner repeat the question for me? If if if the admitted case or the undisputed case, let me make it the undisputed because Mr. Mr. Mkhize does not dispute it.

[00:02:19]If the undisputed case is that Mr. Mkhize is the one that approached Mr. Chaskalson with an offer to give him information about Mr. Karim.

[00:02:36]That's the case, right? And I'm saying that's not disputed. Your your your client had the opportunity to dispute and say exactly what happened in those conversations, but he he he doesn't dispute it. So, we must accept that the position the true position is that Mr. Mkhize unsolicited offered to Mr. Chaskalson that I will give you information about Chaskalson.

[00:03:00]Now, with that about Karim about Mr. Karim.

[00:03:05]With that knowing that how can it be then a legitimate ground of complaint that Mr. Chaskalson was having discussions with me to give him information about Mr. Karim.

[00:03:22]How can it be?

[00:03:24]Just logically if if nothing else, just logically how can it be a legitimate ground for complaint and therefore for recusal?

[00:03:37]Commissioner The >> The issue relating to a belief of unfairness or biasness is subjective.

[00:04:07]And it is not disputed that Mr. Mkhize reached out to Mr. Chaskalson.

[00:04:20]Now, what then transpired from there on could have or did create the impression that moving on there will be a biasness of some sort or he will not be treated fairly.

[00:04:46]And this is what prompts the application.

[00:04:51]Okay.

[00:04:51]>> And prior to the application being brought there was a letter that was addressed to the commission. No, no. Don't go to the letter. You're not answering my question.

[00:05:03]Um, I'm going to repeat it. But before I do that, let me correct you. You are incorrect. It's an incorrect standard to say the issue of biasness is subjective.

[00:05:13]It's an objective test.

[00:05:16]Uh, I expect you know that.

[00:05:19]So, the test is objective. That's one correction. Two, my question to you don't go to letters that were written to the commission. My question to you is simply this.

[00:05:34]Mr. Mkhize approached Mr. Chaskalson with an offer to give him information about Mr. Karim.

[00:05:46]That's what happened according to Mr. Chaskalson's affidavit and Mr. Mkhize does not deny it in the replying affidavit.

[00:05:57]And in your engagement with the chairperson, I said to you that as I was listening to you, you seem in in your own way to accept that's what happened here.

[00:06:09]So, having established that you and I agreeing that Mr. Mkhize is the one that made the approach and offered to provide information about Mr. Karim, how can then it be a legitimate complaint that Mr. Chaskalson was talking to me about Mr. Karim to get information about Mr. Karim?

[00:06:36]How How can it be? In fact, it can never be a basis to claim bias.

[00:06:44]Until you address my question about how can this be a legitimate complaint?

[00:06:52]You offered You offered, "I'll give you information about Karim that relates to your terms of reference. I have stuff on Karim."

[00:07:01]Then Mr. Chaskalson says, "Okay, give me that information."

[00:07:07]If the engagement is about information relating to Mr. Karim, which is originally offered by Mr. Mkhize, how can that be now a legitimate complaint that oh, Mr. Chaskalson wants to talk to me or was talking to me about Mr. Mkhize?

[00:07:26]Firstly, how can that be a legitimate complaint? And I want to suggest to you it's not legitimate.

[00:07:31]It can never be a legitimate complaint.

[00:07:34]The fact itself that he's talking to me about Karim because you offered, unless you want to tell us that Mr. Mkhize was setting Mr. Chaskalson up when he off- offered, "I'll give you information about Karim that relates to your terms of reference. I have stuff on Karim."

[00:07:51]Then Mr. Chaskalson says, "Okay, give me that information."

[00:07:57]If the engagement is about information relating to Mr. Karim, which is originally offered by Mr. Mahotsi, how can that be now a legitimate complaint that oh, Mr. Chaskalson wants to talk to me or was talking to me about Mr. Mahotsi.

[00:08:16]Firstly, how can that be a legitimate complaint? And I want to suggest to you it's not legitimate.

[00:08:21]It can never be a legitimate complaint.

[00:08:24]The fact itself that he's talking to me about Karim because he offered, unless you want to tell us that Mr. Mahotsi was setting Mr. Chaskalson up when he offered him to that I'll give you information about Mahotsi.

[00:08:38]Perhaps he was setting him up so that he can do this complaint, but we have to accept he was in good faith when he made the offer. So, I'm not casting aspersions on him at this stage.

[00:08:48]I accept he was in good faith when he said, "I have information that's relevant to you about Mr. Karim that I'm going to share with you."

[00:08:59]Having accepted that, I'm saying to suggesting to you, in fact I'm putting to you that it can never be a legitimate complaint that he was talking to me about Karim. Therefore, he's Well, firstly, he was talking to me about Karim can never be a basis for a proper or legitimate complaint. Two, it could not under any circumstance be a basis for for claims of bias or fear of bias.

[00:09:30]It can be. So, I would like you to say why am I wrong in in what I'm saying to you know what I'm suggesting to you.

[00:09:39]Commissioner, if if it is looked at in isolation that Mr. Mkhize approached the evidence leader then that cannot be a ground for this application.

[00:10:00]If the mere approach on its own is what the recusal is about, I I I'll have to concede.

[00:10:09]In isolation, it is not a ground to bring a refu- a recusal application.

[00:10:15]Neither is it a ground to anticipate any form of biasness from the evidence leader.

[00:10:25]All right.

[00:10:26]That's fine. So, what else do you say we should look at? So, we we've settled that the approach and the conversation that follows as a result of that approach in itself is not a ground for complaint for legitimate complaint, but for recusal.

[00:10:44]But then you say don't look at it on its own in isolation. What are you What else are you saying we should look at that that then supports the complaint and the ground for recusal?

[00:11:22]Commissioner if if I may refer you to page 38 of the bundle, it's it's back to the telephone calls and the WhatsApp messages.