Tempers flared inside Parliament on Thursday when forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan abruptly exited an ad hoc committee hearing before completing his testimony, triggering fierce condemnation from Members of Parliament who now want him arrested. What began as a procedural engagement into serious allegations within the South African Police Service spiralled into a dramatic confrontation that exposed deep tensions between lawmakers and a high profile witness who has long courted controversy.
The committee is probing claims made by KwaZulu Natal provincial police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, allegations that have already drawn national scrutiny. O’Sullivan, whose earlier appearance had been postponed due to illness, returned this week to give evidence. Yet instead of closure, his departure has opened a fresh political storm, with MPs accusing him of defying the authority of one of the country’s constitutional arms of state.
Heated Exchange In Committee Room
Proceedings appeared steady until Advocate Bongiwe Mkhize indicated she had only a handful of questions remaining. It was at that point that tensions intensified, as O’Sullivan repeatedly attempted to pose his own questions and insisted he needed to leave by 1pm to avoid the cost of rescheduling his flight. The exchange quickly became strained, with members visibly frustrated by what they perceived as impatience and procedural disregard.
As Mkhize wrapped up, O’Sullivan stood, gathered his belongings and began walking out. EFF leader Julius Malema told him to sit down, reminding him that he had not been formally dismissed. MK Party MP David Skosana warned that they would open a case against him. “You are walking out,” Malema and Skosana said, to which O’Sullivan replied, “I am finished.” Malema stressed that only committee chair Soviet Lekganyane had the authority to excuse a witness. O’Sullivan nonetheless continued past MPs and exited the room.
Calls For Immediate Arrest
In the aftermath, outrage intensified. EFF MP Leigh Ann Mathys described the incident in stark legal terms, arguing that the conduct crossed a constitutional line.
“It wasn’t a walkout. We must call it what it is. It’s contempt of Parliament, and that is an offence,”
she told SABC News, insisting that the integrity of Parliament itself had been challenged.
Mathys urged National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to act without delay.
“We do hope that the Speaker acts on this, not like how she ignored when he was insulting or sending threatening messages to witnesses. He’s at the airport now.
So by now she should have sent her lawyers to court to file papers. When he lands in Joburg, if that’s where he’s landing, he must get arrested. We cannot be treated like this.”
She framed the issue as larger than individual grievance, adding,
“It’s not even about us as individual members of Parliament. We are one of the three arms of government. The same man has come here and declared how he loves South Africa and has given his life to fighting criminality, and then he just walked out from an institution that is one of the three arms of the state.
It must be acted on, and it must be acted on immediately. We cannot be waiting 10 weeks or 10 years for Parliament to act. When he lands in Joburg, he must be arrested.”
Chairperson Urges Calm Amid Rising Emotions
Committee chair Soviet Lekganyane moved swiftly to restore order, thanking members for restraining themselves during what he acknowledged was a volatile moment. He confirmed that Parliamentary Legal Services would be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action following the witness’s departure. The committee briefly adjourned and was expected to proceed with testimony from former national police commissioner Kgomotso Phahlane.
Speaking to the media, Lekganyane adopted a measured tone.
“We had very good engagements with Mr Paul O’Sullivan over the last two days, including today. When we agreed that he should come back, indeed he came back. We had a very good start. There were rough moments, as in any engagement,”
he said. He noted that O’Sullivan had confirmed making controversial statements about members and political parties, including allegations that some were formed through syndicate activities. Those comments, he said, had not sat well with MPs, and O’Sullivan had agreed to retract them.
Constitutional Stakes And Political Fallout
The incident has sharpened debate about the authority of parliamentary committees and the obligations of witnesses appearing before them. Committees wield significant oversight powers, and contempt of Parliament is not merely symbolic, it carries potential legal consequences. In a climate already marked by political polarisation, the optics of a witness walking out mid session have amplified anxieties about respect for democratic institutions.
Lekganyane acknowledged that the atmosphere had been charged.
“Sparks were flying at some moments, and we have to accept that this was the kind of engagement we had. But generally, proceedings were good until that point,”
he said. He added that although it had been announced that O’Sullivan would leave at some stage, it was the manner of his exit that drew objection.
“When we started, we announced that at some point he would leave, but not in the manner that he did.
Members were saying that, pressed for time or not, he should leave in a manner that concludes proceedings properly to say we have reached the point where he must leave.
Not to say, ‘This is the last word I’m saying,’ and once he finishes, he stands up and leaves.”