Parliament faces a legal claim from forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan after allegedly failing for more than five months to reimburse expenses he incurred when he appeared before a parliamentary committee in February.
O’Sullivan formally notified Parliament on Wednesday of his intention to pursue the claim under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act.
He said the notice had become necessary because Parliament allegedly applies a six-month prescription period to claims against it, leaving him at risk of losing his right to recover the money if he waited any longer.
“This means I am bound to act now, or my claim may be proscribed,” O’Sullivan wrote in an email accompanying the notice.
The correspondence shows that Parliament requested O’Sullivan to appear at the Good Hope Chamber on February 10 and 11 and gave him a contact person for security arrangements.
He submitted his expenses on February 13 and again on February 18. He later resubmitted the supporting vouchers in May after the claim remained unpaid.
‘We are processing the claim’
Parliament committee secretary Vhonani Ramaano acknowledged the claim on May 14.
“We are processing the claim,” Ramaano wrote.
O’Sullivan responded the same day and asked when the payment would be made.
“Any idea when I can expect it to be settled?” he asked.
According to O’Sullivan, Parliament did not answer that question. He followed up again on July 24 and said the February expenses remained outstanding despite Parliament’s earlier assurance that the claim was being processed.
“I cannot find a response to that question,” he wrote.
“Please, may you advise me when I can expect the same to be paid?”
The correspondence does not disclose the value of the claim, the individual expenses or whether Parliament has approved or rejected any part of it.
It also does not contain the actual statutory notice attached to O’Sullivan’s email. The document records the email transmitting the notice and the earlier correspondence about the claim.
O’Sullivan said he had already waived claims linked to two later visits to Cape Town because he had used those trips to conduct other business.
O’Sullivan warns about reinstating waived claims
He warned that he may reinstate those claims if Parliament fails to resolve the February payment.
“You will recall that I have waived two further expense claims,” he wrote.
“I did this on the basis that my February claim would be promptly paid. I reserve the right to reinstate the waived expense claims if I cannot see some finality here.”
O’Sullivan said he was not seeking payment beyond what he was entitled to but objected to carrying costs that arose from an appearance arranged by Parliament.
“I don’t want anything I am not entitled to, but I cannot be seen to be bankrolling Parliament by making interest-free loans of my expenses,” he wrote.
Six-star hotel
The dispute appears to include disagreement over accommodation costs.
In an earlier email, O’Sullivan accused an unnamed committee member of opposing payment because he had allegedly stayed in a six-star hotel.
He rejected that account and said Parliament had requested his attendance during the Mining Indaba, when accommodation in Cape Town was limited.
“A dishonest member of the committee insisted that I should not be paid because I had stayed in a six-star hotel, which was an intentional lie by that member,” O’Sullivan wrote.
“I was requested to be in Parliament during the same week of the Mining Indaba, when no hotel rooms were available. I did not choose the date I should be there.”
The documents do not identify the member, the hotel or the rate charged. They also do not contain Parliament’s version of the accommodation dispute.
O’Sullivan said the payment delay could not be justified because Parliament had requested his presence and determined when he had to travel.
“It is not my function to bank-roll Parliament,” he wrote in May.
The correspondence also shows that O’Sullivan sought confidentiality around his appearance.
Before the February hearing, he asked that committee members be informed about his attendance only “in an off-the-record manner” and be “sworn to secrecy on the matter.”
The documents do not identify the committee, the subject of his evidence or why secrecy was required.
O’Sullivan copied the Speaker of the National Assembly, Parliament’s ethics officials and lawyers when he issued the legal notice on July 29.
The correspondence in the document did not explain whether Parliament was still considering the claim, had disputed it, or had rejected it.
- Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan is pursuing a legal claim against Parliament for failing to reimburse his expenses from a February committee appearance for over five months.
- O’Sullivan sent a formal legal notice citing a six-month prescription limit, risking prescription of his claim if not addressed promptly.
- Parliament acknowledged the claim in May and said it was processing the payment, but O’Sullivan has not received it and says his follow-ups have gone unanswered.
- Dispute includes Parliament allegedly opposing payment due to O’Sullivan staying in a six-star hotel during the Mining Indaba week, which O’Sullivan denies, stating limited accommodation options.
- O’Sullivan reserved the right to reinstate previously waived expense claims if the February reimbursement is not resolved and criticized Parliament for delaying payment of legitimately incurred costs.
