Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing criminality, political interference and corruption within the justice system has intensified calls for forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan to appear before it in person.
The committee met virtually on Monday for a procedural session as it races against time to complete its work before the 20 February deadline.
Several key witnesses have yet to testify.
This week, former Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) executive director Robert McBride and Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department (EMPD) deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi are scheduled to give evidence, each over two days.
O’Sullivan and alleged political fixer Oupa “Brown” Mogotsi are expected to appear next week.
Ad hoc committee evidence leader flags safety concerns
Briefing MPs, the committee’s evidence leader Advocate Norman Arendse revealed that Mogotsi remains uneasy about both his legal representation and personal safety.
Arendse further told the committee that O’Sullivan, who is believed to be in the United Kingdom (UK), has requested to testify virtually, citing security concerns.
This request has not been well received, as MPs have repeatedly stressed their preference for in-person testimony at the Good Hope Chambers in Cape Town.
ALSO READ: Paul O’Sullivan refuses to appear at Parliament’s ad hoc committee due to ‘threats’
Arendse also confirmed that both KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane are expected to return to testify at a later stage.
In addition, parliamentary content adviser Nicolette van Zyl-Gous suggested that the committee should set aside three separate days to hear public submissions from individuals and civil society organisations.
Paul O’Sullivan’s reluctant slammed
ANC MP Mdumiseni Ntuli launched a scathing attack on O’Sullivan, accusing him of disrespecting Parliament.
“We will not accept any excuse, as he has said it in those emails about his security and that we want to organise him to be murdered and all that nonsense he is talking about,” Ntuli said.
Ntuli proposed that if O’Sullivan does not return to South Africa in time, the committee should explore alternative mechanisms to secure his testimony, including appearing before a portfolio committee and submitting supplementary input to the final report.
He stressed the importance of O’Sullivan’s role within the security sector, given his frequent public criticism of the police.
“It would be a travesty of justice not to have him before us.”
READ MORE: Paul O’Sullivan hits Mkhwanazi with defamation lawsuit
Several MPs echoed calls for legal steps to compel O’Sullivan’s attendance.
MK party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo insisted that the committee must assert its authority when dealing with O’Sullivan.
“We can’t be found wanting,” the MK party MP added.
DA MP Glynniss Breytenbach, meanwhile, warned that forcing him to return could have serious consequences.
“We need to be a little bit careful. If we force him to come and he does get assassinated, we will have to deal with that fallout.
“But I have no objection to members wanting him to come,” Breytenbach said.
Watch the meeting here:
EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys, however, argued that Parliament should formally invoke its powers to compel O’Sullivan’s appearance.
She also questioned inconsistencies around his travel plans.
“It was quite interesting that in his letter he says he had planned a holiday even before the committee has started and he didn’t indicate that in the beginning when we first engaged him,” she said.
O’Sullivan has been accused by some witnesses of exerting undue influence over Ipid.
He is also alleged to have sent threatening messages to Police Minister Senzo Mchunu’s chief of staff, Cedrick Nkabinde.
Calls to broaden the scope
Earlier, Nomvalo urged the committee to expand its focus beyond the police, arguing that the judiciary and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) have not received adequate scrutiny.
He also criticised the testimony of outgoing National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shamila Batohi.
“Batohi was an evasive witness. She was denying everything; she was pleading ignorance to everything, so there’s nothing that Batohi helped us with.
“So, there is a need to take matters deeper, and I think we have missed that opportunity,” he said.
NOW READ: ‘Stop being a coward’: Mkhwanazi ad hoc committee meeting descends into chaos
