The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has been thrust into another procedural dispute after evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC pushed back strongly against allegations from Brown Mogotsi that he was treated unfairly during questioning. The row has now become one of the most closely watched developments in the hearings, with the commission set to deal with a formal recusal bid in the coming weeks.
According to the commission, Chaskalson rejects Mogotsi’s claim that his conduct during the proceedings was biased or improper. In response, the senior advocate intends to seek permission from his professional bodies to file an affidavit dealing directly with the accusations levelled against him. That move signals that the matter is no longer just about testimony, but also about the conduct of the legal teams leading the inquiry.
The dispute comes at a sensitive point in the hearings, where credibility, procedure and public confidence in the process are all under scrutiny. Mogotsi had been expected to return to the stand on Tuesday and Wednesday, but instead indicated that he would apply for Chaskalson’s recusal, effectively asking that the evidence leader be removed from his matter. For the commission, that creates a new layer of delay and legal argument in an already high-profile inquiry.
Commission spokesperson Jeremy Michaels confirmed the development, saying the recusal application will be heard on 15 May 2026. Only after that ruling will the commission decide who leads Mogotsi’s evidence, depending on whether the application succeeds or fails. In practical terms, the outcome will determine whether Chaskalson continues in the role or whether another evidence leader takes over.
For a commission tasked with examining serious allegations and public concerns, these kinds of disputes are not unusual, but they do matter. They can shape the tempo of proceedings, influence witness cooperation and become part of the broader narrative around fairness. As we have seen in other South African commissions, perceptions of impartiality are often just as important as the evidence itself.
Mogotsi’s recusal move suggests he believes the questioning he faced crossed a line. While the exact detail of his complaint has not yet been expanded on publicly in the commission’s latest update, the fact that it has escalated to a formal application means the matter will now be tested through the commission’s process. That process is designed to handle objections of this nature, but it also places the spotlight squarely on the behaviour of counsel.
Chaskalson’s intention to respond through an affidavit is significant because it shows he is not prepared to let the allegations stand unanswered. Rather than deal with the matter informally, he is seeking a structured avenue to place his version of events on record. In legal settings, affidavits carry weight because they create a sworn account, which can then be considered by the decision-makers overseeing the inquiry.
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has already attracted considerable public attention because of the seriousness of the issues being ventilated. With each procedural turn, the hearings become not only a search for facts but also a test of how South Africa’s quasi-judicial processes manage conflict between witnesses, lawyers and institutional authority. This latest dispute is a reminder that the mechanics of justice can be just as consequential as the evidence being heard.
There is also a wider public interest angle here. When a witness challenges the fairness of an evidence leader, it can feed concern among viewers and observers about whether the process is balanced. For that reason, the commission will want to resolve the matter cleanly and transparently. Any suggestion that one side is being unfairly treated can quickly undermine confidence, particularly in a country where public trust in institutions is often fragile.
Our understanding is that the commission is treating the matter according to its normal procedures, with the recusal application now on the calendar for 15 May 2026. That date will be pivotal. If the application fails, Mogotsi’s testimony is likely to resume under Chaskalson. If it succeeds, the commission will need to reassign the role of questioning him, which could mean a fresh face takes over the line of evidence.
Madlanga Commission of Inquiry faces fresh test over fairness claims
This is not the first time a South African commission has had to manage accusations of bias or disputes over how witnesses are handled. But each case brings its own pressure. In this instance, the tension between a witness’s right to a fair hearing and an evidence leader’s duty to test that witness thoroughly is at the centre of the disagreement.
The commission has not suggested that the hearings are at risk, but the recusal fight could still affect the pace of proceedings. Depending on how long the application takes to argue and decide, the schedule may need to shift again. That kind of knock-on effect is often the cost of contested testimony in major public inquiries.
For now, all eyes will be on the May hearing, where the commission is expected to hear the recusal application in full. Until then, Brown Mogotsi remains at the centre of a legal and procedural storm, while Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC prepares to defend his conduct on oath if his professional bodies allow it.
What is clear is that the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry is entering another important phase, one that will test not only the evidence before it, but also the credibility of the process itself. The next ruling could shape how Mogotsi’s evidence is heard and how the commission is viewed by the public as it continues its work.