Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan has accused the parliamentary committee of deliberately obstructing his attempt to testify, after weeks of unanswered correspondence and what he describes as inconsistent and irrational refusals to allow virtual evidence.
In a series of emails exchanged between mid-January and January 26, O’Sullivan repeatedly requested clarity from the Parliament of South Africa’s Ad Hoc Committee, led by chairperson Soviet Lekganyane, regarding reports allegedly being compiled about him, and the committee’s refusal to permit him to testify remotely.
Access to report against him
The dispute arose after a parliamentary media statement dated January 6 referred to a “report on cases against Mr Paul O’Sullivan”. O’Sullivan immediately demanded sight of the report, or confirmation of its existence. He warned that reviving matters dating back to 2016 and 2017 — which he says were dismissed or resulted in acquittals — would amount to an abuse of process.
After receiving no response for more than a week, the committee secretary eventually forwarded a letter to O’Sullivan on January 21. O’Sullivan responded by rejecting any suggestion that he had shown contempt of Parliament. And he reiterated that he would not appear in person, citing security concerns and what he termed unequal treatment.
He pointed out that the committee itself conducts proceedings virtually when it deems appropriate. And he questioned why the same was being denied to him. He further alleged that committee members had failed to intervene when statements inciting violence against him were made during hearings. This while some members had publicly criticised him despite their quasi-judicial roles.
Wants to testify virtually, secret location
O’Sullivan offered to testify virtually on January 27 and 28, or alternatively from a South African embassy abroad. This is provided that no public disclosure of his location was made. Should the committee issue a summons requiring physical attendance, he warned that his legal team would seek urgent judicial relief.
In subsequent emails, O’Sullivan informed parliament that his written submission had been substantially revised to address what he described as false allegations by former police officials and others. He said the updated submission, running to more than 1,100 pages, should replace earlier versions. And it should be considered the authoritative record.
By January 26, O’Sullivan had compiled a detailed chronology of his engagements with parliament. He stated that he had submitted evidence as early as November last year. And that he formally applied to testify virtually in December. He added that he followed up repeatedly without receiving a summons or a substantive response.
Feels victimised
“The record reflects repeated non-responses,” he wrote. He concluded that the only reasonable inference was that he was being deliberately prevented from testifying.
In his final email of the day, O’Sullivan warned that unless parliament acted immediately, he would publish his submission and place his evidence before other bodies. These include commissions of inquiry willing to hear sworn testimony without what he termed “partisan interference”.
