The Madlanga Commission was plunged into a scene of stark contradiction on Wednesday as North West businessman Brown Mogotsi attempted to walk back his own previous statements, denying that controversial tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala had ever funded him, despite the commission being played a video in which he explicitly said the opposite.
In a tense exchange that highlighted the challenges of pinning down testimony, Mogotsi stood by his earlier, explosive allegations of CIA infiltration and high-level corruption but sought to redefine his relationship with the man he had previously labelled a “hitman” for corrupt police deals.
“He Helped Me, He Didn’t Fund Me”
Under questioning, Mogotsi was careful to parse his words with newfound precision. He acknowledged his association with Matlala but insisted it was not financial.
“Mr. Matlala, known as ‘Cat’, helped me, but he did not fund me,” Mogotsi stated, drawing a distinction that became the central point of the day’s proceedings. He elaborated that Matlala’s assistance was strategic, relating to his foundation. “He helped me with my foundation to get funding. He provided guidance and connections.”
This testimony was a clear attempt to distance himself from the direct financial dependency that the term “funded” implies, potentially to avoid being portrayed as wholly beholden to a man he himself has implicated in serious criminal activity.
The Video: A Ghost from the Past
The commission, however, was prepared. Lawyers presented a previously recorded video of Mogotsi, likely from a public gathering or interview, which was then played in the hearing room. In the footage, a confident Mogotsi could be heard telling an audience a different story, explicitly using the words that he now denied.
In the video, Mogotsi is seen and heard stating, “I was funded by Cat Matlala.”
The playing of the video created a palpable tension in the room. It placed Mogotsi in the difficult position of having his own sworn testimony directly contradicted by his past self.
A Clash of Narratives
Faced with this irreconcilable conflict, Mogotsi did not recant his current testimony. Instead, he was forced to account for the discrepancy. His explanations ranged from claiming his words in the video were taken “out of context” to suggesting that “funded” was a colloquial and inaccurate term for the “help” he had described.
The commission’s lead evidence leader, along with Chair Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, pressed him on the matter. “Mr. Mogotsi, you are under oath here today,” one advocate stated. “In this video, you are clearly heard making a definitive statement. Which version is the truth?”
Mogotsi’s evasion and insistence on his semantic distinction between “help” and “funding” left more questions than answers. The incident severely undermined his credibility, portraying a witness who appears to shift his narrative to suit the context, raising doubts about the reliability of all his other sensational claims before the commission.
For the observers, the moment was a dramatic highlight, demonstrating that while Mogotsi is eager to make allegations against others, his own accounts are not immune to serious and demonstrable contradiction.
About The Author
