The Johannesburg Magistrate's Court has dismissed businessman Brown Mogotsi’s application to compel the state to disclose the identities of witnesses in his criminal case.

Mogotsi was arrested on 16 May 2026 on a charge of defeating the ends of justice after allegedly staging a fake assassination attempt during his first appearance before the Madlanga Commission in November 2025.

He was denied bail on 4 June after failing to provide a verifiable residential address.

His lawyer, Makau Sekgatja, argued on Monday that the state had acted illegally by redacting the names of witnesses from the docket. He submitted that only a court, not the prosecution, could authorise withholding witnesses' identities.

"The state cannot simply tell us that it is not going to provide the names of specific witnesses because that is not based on law," Sekgatja said.

He said that withholding the names infringed on Mogotsi's constitutional right to prepare an adequate defence.

"Our client needs to know who these people are who are making allegations against him. If he wishes to conduct further investigations to prepare for trial, he needs to know the identities of his accusers," he said.

Sekgatja also criticised delays in the disclosure of witness statements. He said the defence had requested the statements on 10 July but had received some of them only on Monday.

"The situation today is that we have received statements and expected to consult with our client. Again, it is not all the statements that have been provided," he said.

"It is unexplained why a request made on 10 July has only been attended to on 3 August. This cannot be an acceptable practice if justice is to be administered without unnecessary delay."

The state rejected suggestions that it was withholding evidence.

The prosecutor said the defence had requested typed copies of the witness statements, which had since been prepared. "What is outstanding is the names and personal information that have not been given to the defence," the prosecutor said.

He said section 144(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act allowed the state to withhold witnesses' names and addresses in appropriate circumstances.

"The reason the state embarked on this course is because, during the bail application, there was a threat made against one of the state witnesses," the prosecutor said.

He alleged that Mogotsi's wife had visited the witness, prompting the prosecution to redact identifying details to prevent further incidents.

"If the court is of the view that the state is delaying the matter, it can order disclosure. However, revealing those names would not be in the interests of justice," he said.

The prosecutor argued that withholding the identities of witnesses did not infringe on Mogotsi's constitutional rights.

The magistrate asked whether disclosing only the witnesses' names, without their addresses, would satisfy the defence. The state responded that revealing the names would inevitably expose the witnesses' identities.

Sekgatja denied that Mogotsi or his wife had intimidated any witness, noting that his client faced no intimidation-related charges.

He said the allegation stemmed from a disagreement between Mogotsi's wife and a neighbour while she was visiting the area.

"The allegation emanates from a neighbour of the accused, who was irritated by the accused's wife during her visit," he said.

He said there had been no witness intimidation and argued that the charge against Mogotsi did not justify fears that witnesses would be threatened.

In dismissing the application, the magistrate said the protection of witnesses was an important consideration.

The court ordered the state to provide the defence with the full witness statements it intends to rely on at trial, but without disclosing the names or addresses of the witnesses.

"I do not make an order that the names and addresses of those witnesses be revealed at this stage," the magistrate ruled.