Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan has launched a sustained email offensive against Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing corruption in the criminal justice system, accusing it of operating as a “kangaroo court” and questioning how its witnesses were selected – in correspondence sent to MPs after he had completed his testimony before the panel.
O’Sullivan, who first appeared before the committee on February 10 and concluded his evidence on March 5, following a walkout and return, escalated his criticism in a series of emails sent between March 8 and March 24 to senior parliamentary officials and members of the committee.
On March 8, O’Sullivan wrote to committee officials, including Vhonani Ramaano and Molapi Lekganyane, raising concerns about what he described as deep-rooted corruption within the police and the direction of the committee’s work.
A day later, on March 9, he again wrote to the same officials – copying in parliamentary addresses, including the Speaker’s office – responding to an MK Party media statement and defending his investigations and conduct. His criticism intensified in a broader email sent on March 24, addressed to multiple MPs across parties, including committee members and senior parliamentarians, in which he directly attacked the conduct of the hearings.
“I record that I attended parliament voluntarily and was treated by the ill-disciplined members amongst you as a criminal, white supremacist and spy and continually subjected to gross abuse and vitriolic treatment,” he wrote in the March 24 correspondence.
He added: “Put simply, those members reduced your gathering to nothing more than a kangaroo court, with predetermined outcomes in mind.”
O’Sullivan’s appearance before the committee had been marked by tension. He denied allegations that he was a “spy” during his initial appearance, before walking out of proceedings on February 26 amid disputes with committee members. He later returned voluntarily.
Despite concluding his evidence, his subsequent emails indicate that his dispute with the committee intensified rather than subsided.
“Your committee could have done something really useful instead of inviting me to Cape Town to be insulted and abused, under the protection of parliamentary privilege,” he wrote.
“It’s no good sitting until two in the morning if the time is being spent protecting criminals.”
O’Sullivan also raised concerns about how witnesses were identified. “It would be very useful… to get a list of all witnesses, and alongside each witness name, list the name of the committee member that suggested calling that witness,” he wrote.
He said the process should extend to those who were excluded. “Do the same for a list of witnesses that were not called and work out who prevented them from being called. The true manipulation will emerge.”
O’Sullivan suggested that analysing the pattern of witness selection could reveal whether the direction of the inquiry had been influenced. He proposed that a full record of who proposed and supported witnesses be compiled and scrutinised.
“Examine that list to see who put up the names of those proposed and those that appeared, and it will become clear… as to whom has exercised undue influence over the committee.”
He warned that such findings could have consequences for the credibility of the committee’s work. “If it can be seen… that there was undue influence, [it would] effectively render the work of the committee void.”
O’Sullivan’s correspondence, sent after his final appearance, also questioned whether the committee could produce a credible outcome.
He further alleged that certain individuals were treated favourably. “I don’t need to name all of their criminal friends, but some of them were in front of you and were treated like guests of honour,” he wrote.
O’Sullivan said he reserved the right to escalate the matter further. “Given my firm belief that undue influence is being exercised over the ad hoc committee, I reserve my rights to call for criminal investigations.”
Parliament has not yet publicly responded to the allegations.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
- Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan has launched a sustained email offensive against Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing corruption in the criminal justice system, accusing it of operating as a “kangaroo court” and questioning how its witnesses were selected – in correspondence sent to MPs after he had completed his testimony before the panel.
- O’Sullivan, who first appeared before the committee on February 10 and concluded his evidence on March 5, following a walkout and return, escalated his criticism in a series of emails sent between March 8 and March 24 to senior parliamentary officials and members of the committee.
- On March 8, O’Sullivan wrote to committee officials, including Vhonani Ramaano and Molapi Lekganyane, raising concerns about what he described as deep-rooted corruption within the police and the direction of the committee’s work.
- A day later, on March 9, he again wrote to the same officials – copying in parliamentary addresses, including the Speaker’s office – responding to an MK Party media statement and defending his investigations and conduct.
- His criticism intensified in a broader email sent on March 24, addressed to multiple MPs across parties, including committee members and senior parliamentarians, in which he directly attacked the conduct of the hearings.
