Parliament’s committee investigating alleged political interference in the justice system has resolved to compel forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan to return and complete his unfinished testimony after he walked out of proceedings last week.
The decision follows O’Sullivan’s abrupt departure from a hearing on Thursday while he was still under examination.
Parliament’s legal adviser, Andile Tetyana, told MPs on Monday that the committee had unanimously agreed that O’Sullivan must return.
“You will recall that on Thursday, the 26th of February 2026, and after Mr O’Sullivan had walked out of the committee proceedings without your permission and in violation of the rules of the National Assembly and the Powers and Privileges Act, you posed a question to committee members about whether it is their wish for Mr O’Sullivan to come back to the committee and complete his evidence,” Tetyana said.
“The committee resolved resoundingly that Mr O’Sullivan must come back and conclude his evidence, as he was still under examination when he walked out.”
Tetyana confirmed that formal correspondence was sent to O’Sullivan on Friday, February 27, inviting him to appear before the committee on Thursday, March 5, 2026.
He was instructed to indicate by noon on Monday whether he would comply.
He warned that enforcement steps were already in place should O’Sullivan fail to cooperate.
Summons already prepared
“A summons has already been prepared to secure his attendance,” Tetyana said, noting that the process is provided for under Section 56A of the constitution, read with Section 142B of the Powers and Privileges Act.
Under the act, a summons must be issued by the secretary to parliament on the instruction of the committee chairperson, in line with a committee resolution and with the concurrence of the speaker of the National Assembly.
Meanwhile, legal adviser Telana Halley-Starkey presented an opinion indicating that O’Sullivan’s walkout may itself carry legal consequences.
She said Rule 183 of the National Assembly requires any person appearing before a committee to follow the chairperson’s directions.
O’Sullivan left despite requests that he remain seated and complete his testimony.
Halley-Starkey said his conduct could amount to impeding parliament’s work and potentially constitute contempt, even though he had not been formally summoned at the time.
She further warned that failing to answer lawful questions while under examination may be an offence.
O’Sullivan had cited the need to catch a flight as the reason for leaving. The inquiry is continuing.
