From a witness walking out of proceedings to another in open disagreement with the evidence leader, parliament’s ad hoc committee heard explosive testimony from two high-profile figures on Thursday.
The committee is investigating allegations of corruption and undue interference in the criminal justice system.
Two key witnesses — forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan and former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane — returned to parliament for a second time to conclude their evidence.
Proceedings began with O’Sullivan, who eventually walked out without permission after an intense, visibly frustrating cross-examination by committee members.
During his testimony, O’Sullivan addressed “mud-slinging” regarding his motives for obtaining South African citizenship. While born in Ireland, O’Sullivan confirmed he holds triple citizenship (South Africa, Ireland and the UK), a status that became a focal point for the committee.
Denying allegations that he operated as a foreign spy, he emphasised his long-standing commitment to the country.
“If I were a spy, I have not done a good job of keeping a low profile,” O’Sullivan told the committee.
“The reality is, I have never been a foreign spy. I took the oath of allegiance when I became a citizen in 1995. I’ve spent 36 years of my life fighting crime in this country, not infiltrating organisations. Nobody paid me. I did it because I wanted to make South Africa a better country for all.”
If I were a spy, I have not done a good job of keeping a low profile.
— Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan
O’Sullivan also launched a scathing critique of KZN police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s July media briefing.
He characterised the presentation as a “red herring” designed to distract from criminal activity within crime intelligence, calling the briefing “dishonest and divisive.”
He did, however, withdraw previous insults directed at committee members, whom he had once told to “kiss my ass” when refusing to appear physically.
The session turned hostile when MK Party MP David Skosana labelled O’Sullivan a “thug, conman and thief”.
Though O’Sullivan’s testimony was scheduled to end at 1pm, deliberations overran. Citing a need to catch a flight, O’Sullivan began packing his bags and exited while the evidence leader was still wrapping up.
The move sparked outrage. Evidence leader Soviet Lekganyane concluded the session by stating the committee would seek formal legal counsel to determine the consequences of the unauthorised departure.
Phahlane vs the evidence leader
The afternoon saw a second “face-off”, this time between Phahlane and evidence leader advocate Norman Arendse.
Arendse introduced Phahlane’s charge sheets and a recent Labour Appeal Court (LAC) judgment. On February 5, the LAC dismissed Phahlane’s appeal for reinstatement, upholding his July 2020 dismissal from the SAPS following findings of dishonest conduct.
Phahlane refused to answer questions regarding the judgment, stating:
- he intended only to address specific criminal allegations made during his previous appearance on January 14;
- he believed the committee should wait until Constitutional Court processes were exhausted; and
- he claimed forensic reports regarding the “360-degree camera contracts” were being used selectively.
The tension peaked when Arendse probed Phahlane’s dismissal and the Ethemba Forensic Group tender. Phahlane was accused of obstructing the R92m contract for forensic cameras, resulting in a R24m settlement paid by the SAPS. When Arendse demanded a “yes or no” answer regarding irregularities, Phahlane pushed back.
“I’m not going to give a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ There is no irregularity that I am party to,” Phahlane insisted, accusing Arendse of asking irrelevant questions.
Phahlane accused Arendse of being biased and representing former Ipid boss Robert McBride and a “cabal”.
“I’ve been very patient. I can’t continue to be attacked by the senior counsel in the manner he’s doing. I don’t know who he’s representing,” Phahlane stated, adding that his comments were “not a mistake.”
After a consultation with his legal team, Phahlane eventually withdrew the statement to allow the proceedings to continue.
Arendse expressed his disappointment, maintaining that his evidence, including the LAC judgment and forensic reports, was based on objective facts rather than personal bias.
“The reports speak for themselves,” Arendse said. “There is no mention of a McBride or Arendse in those documents.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.