Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating corruption within South Africa’s criminal justice system has taken a firm stance against Paul O’Sullivan after what members described as a deeply offensive and destabilising challenge to its authority. The committee, which met on Monday to finalise its programme, was confronted with correspondence from O’Sullivan that went far beyond a procedural request to appear virtually, instead striking at the credibility and legitimacy of Parliament itself.
Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Soviet Lekganyane made it clear that the matter could not be treated lightly. He said O’Sullivan had insulted Parliament by labelling it a criminal institution and by alleging that members of the committee were involved in a conspiracy to kill him. These claims, Lekganyane said, represented an unprecedented attack on democratic oversight and could not simply be brushed aside as rhetoric.
“He went on to cast aspersions on MPs and this committee, accusing them of aiding a criminal conspiracy to take his life.
He even calls them criminals, and I don’t think that is something we can ignore,” Lekganyane said.
Virtual Appearance Request Sparks Firm Resistance
O’Sullivan, who is currently in London, had requested to testify virtually, citing alleged death threats and his absence from South Africa as reasons for not appearing in person. He further stated that even if he were to testify virtually, he would not recognise members of the MK Party, the EFF or ActionSA. This position only intensified the anger among MPs, who viewed it as an attempt to dictate terms to Parliament.
Members across party lines argued that allowing a virtual appearance under such circumstances would weaken Parliament’s authority and set a dangerous precedent. The committee’s role, they stressed, is to exercise oversight without fear or favour, and any witness central to its inquiry must respect that mandate.
ANC Labels Conduct As Open Contempt
The ANC’s chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli described O’Sullivan’s behaviour as contemptuous, saying the tone and content of his communications reflected a disregard for Parliament as a constitutional institution. Ntuli said the correspondence made it evident that the committee was dealing with someone who did not believe he was accountable to elected representatives.
According to Ntuli, the seriousness of the allegations surrounding O’Sullivan’s role in the security environment of the South African Police Service made his physical presence before the committee non negotiable.
“When I read the e-mails he wrote, it was clear we are dealing with an individual treating Parliament with serious contempt,” Ntuli said.
“We are convinced he must be physically called to the committee to explain his role in the security environment of the SAPS.”
Central Figure In A High Stakes Inquiry
O’Sullivan remains a central figure in the committee’s investigation, which is probing allegations of corruption and undue influence within the criminal justice system. Witnesses have accused him of exerting improper influence over the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, with some claiming he effectively directed the SAPS, Ipid and even the National Prosecuting Authority.
These allegations place O’Sullivan at the heart of a broader narrative about power, accountability and the erosion of institutional independence. MPs have warned that failure to compel his appearance would undermine public confidence in Parliament’s ability to hold powerful individuals to account.
Explosive Testimony And Alleged Intimidation
The inquiry has already heard explosive testimony. Former acting national police commissioner Lt Gen Khomotso Phahlane told the committee that O’Sullivan allegedly worked with former Ipid head Robert McBride and a group of journalists in a campaign to discredit him. This testimony has heightened tensions and added urgency to the committee’s work.
Further allegations suggest that O’Sullivan sent threatening messages to Cedrick Nkabinde, the police ministry’s chief of staff. MPs say these claims reinforce the need for a rigorous examination of O’Sullivan’s conduct, carried out in person and under oath.
Parliament Signals Readiness To Compel Attendance
Several MPs emphasised that Parliament has legal mechanisms at its disposal to compel witnesses to appear. MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo said his party would not allow O’Sullivan to act with impunity, insisting that every available mechanism must be used to secure his physical attendance.
EFF MP Leigh Ann Mathys echoed this view, saying the committee had tolerated O’Sullivan’s conduct for too long and that the time had come to use Parliament’s powers decisively.
“We must use every available mechanism to bring him physically before the committee,” Nomvalo stated.
“It is time to formally summon him and use Parliament’s powers to compel his appearance,” Mathys said.
Deadline Set As Committee Presses Ahead
O’Sullivan was initially scheduled to testify on January 21 and 22, dates that have now passed without his appearance. The committee has set a firm deadline of February 20 for him to present himself, after which it will determine its next steps.
ANC MP Xola Nqola confirmed that the request for a virtual appearance has been formally declined. The committee is expected to resume its work on Tuesday, with MPs signalling that patience has run out and that Parliament intends to assert its authority in full view of the public.
