Ad Hoc Committee moves to subpoena Brown Mogotsi after refusal to appear

Parliament’s ad hoc committee has decided to subpoena controversial North West businessman Brown Mogotsi after he refused to comply with a request to appear before the committee.

The committee was expected to hear evidence from Paul O'Sullivan and Mogotsi this week.

Mogotsi demanded that Parliament fund his private security detail, prompting a series of logistical and procedural concerns among committee members.

Reporting back to the committee, Secretary Vhonani Ramaano explained that Mogotsi initially requested security protection from Parliament’s security services. However, when an offer was made to provide him with escorts upon his arrival in Cape Town, Mogotsi rejected it. 

Ramaano further explained that despite efforts to arrange flights and accommodation for Mogotsi, the businessman insisted on using his own private security and demanded that Parliament fund it for seven days.

"I contacted him yesterday to arrange travel, but he told me he wouldn't give me his ID number unless his security needs were met," Ramaano said.

The refusal has sparked tension among committee members, with some suggesting drastic action. Ad hoc committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane voiced his dissatisfaction with Mogotsi’s refusal to comply with committee procedures, calling his demands ''ridiculous and unacceptable."

"He wants his own private security, and he’s asking Parliament to pay for it for seven days. We cannot accommodate such demands. Parliament cannot provide him with the kind of protection he’s requesting,'' he said. 

MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo, was particularly blunt in his response, saying that the committee should not waste time discussing the matter further.

"This is not something that requires a meeting. The legal team should subpoena him immediately. We can't let Mogotsi undermine the authority of this committee," he said.

Nomvalo emphasised that all members, including himself, have accepted security from Parliament, even when they don’t know the officers personally. "He needs to follow the same process," he added.

The procedural challenges were further compounded by logistical issues surrounding the appearance of witnesses.

MK Party MP David Skosana highlighted the growing pattern of witness no-shows, expressing his concerns about the committee's credibility if this trend continued.

"Yesterday, we were expecting six witnesses, but only three showed up. Today, we were expecting six again, and now only two are here," Skosana said.

Skosana questioned the reliability of the current administrative system, adding that the committee could not allow people to "do as they please" by not showing up for scheduled appearances. "If they are not willing to come, then let's stop rescheduling to suit them," Skosana said. 

MK Party MP Vusi Shongwe also raised concerns, comparing the treatment of witnesses to that of other high-profile individuals who rely on state-provided security.

"The President and former presidents are guided by people they don't know, but they trust the protection provided by the state," Shongwe said.

He questioned why Mogotsi, who had previously not expressed such fears, was now claiming imminent danger.

"If he feared for his life before, why has he never been attacked? Now, suddenly, when he’s coming to Parliament, he fears for his life? This is becoming a distraction."

Meanwhile, EFF MP Leigh Ann Mathys expressed deep dissatisfaction with Parliament’s handling of logistics, particularly in the case of Paul O'Sullivan, another key figure linked to the committee’s investigations.

Mathys criticised the delays in issuing subpoenas and questioned why witnesses were not appearing as scheduled. "We’ve been patient for too long," Mathys said. "Why are witnesses not here? Is it Parliament’s fault or is it simply that people are refusing to cooperate?"

Legal Advisor Andile Tetyana clarified the committee’s limited authority regarding subpoenas, stating that the Speaker of the National Assembly has the final say on summoning witnesses such as O'Sullivan.

"I’ve been informed that the Speaker will make a decision within the next day or two on this matter," Tetyana said.

However, this update did little to alleviate the committee's frustration.  Nomvalo criticised the vagueness of the report, demanding more transparency. "We need more than just vague reports saying the Speaker will decide. We need specifics, when did we write to the Speaker and what was their response?" he asked.

In response to the growing frustration, ANC Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli suggested that the committee should focus on the work at hand, given that some witnesses were already present.

"Let's deal with the witnesses who are here today and address our internal issues later," Ntuli proposed.

Despite this suggestion, Lekganyane maintained that the committee must continue to focus on resolving the ongoing issues, particularly the witness appearances.

"Summoning a witness is not something we can rush," Lekganyane said. "The process will take time, but we must move forward with today’s business."

However, the frustrations within the committee continued to mount as members questioned the effectiveness of Parliament’s administration in handling witness logistics.

Skosana stressed that the committee needed to hold Parliament accountable for its failures in scheduling witnesses.

"We need to know why people are not here. Is it our fault, or is it the fault of Parliament’s administration?" 

The committee members agreed that, in the absence of Mogotsi’s appearance, they would use tomorrow for public submissions. 

hope.ntanzi@iol.co.za 

IOL Politics