Parliament has dismissed allegations it is protecting forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan and businessman Brown Mogotsi by shielding them from appearing physically before the ad hoc committee investigating allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system.
This is after National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza expressed reluctance to approve the committee’s request to subpoena the pair, citing legal and safety concerns as the primary reasons for declining to issue summons at this stage.
Both O’Sullivan and Mogotsi requested to testify virtually, citing personal security risks.
O’Sullivan, currently abroad, cited “credible death threats” as the reason he cannot travel to South Africa. He offered to testify from a South African embassy on the condition that the specific location remain confidential for his safety.
Mogotsi requested that parliament fund a personal security detail if he were to appear in person.
Didiza argued that the committee had failed to “sufficiently engage” with these requests or provide reasonable legal grounds for refusing them.
The speaker’s decisions were made after a careful and considered assessment of the committee’s requests
— Moloto Mothapo, parliamentary spokesperson
The speaker’s decision sparked a sharp divide within the ad hoc committee. While the ANC supported Didiza’s approach, opposition parties, including the EFF and the MK Party, accused her of “shielding” specific witnesses from accountability.
Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo dismissed these claims, clarifying that the speaker’s decision was made after careful consideration.
“These assertions are incorrect and mischaracterise both the speaker’s role and the legal basis upon which the decisions were taken,” Mothapo said. “The speaker’s decisions were made after a careful and considered assessment of the committee’s requests.”
Mothapo emphasised that the speaker’s actions were intended to protect the integrity, lawfulness and credibility of parliament rather than any specific individual.
According to parliamentary records, the two witnesses have not refused to testify. Instead, they formally applied for a virtual hearing, an option permitted under the committee’s own terms of reference.
Mothapo noted that the records submitted to the speaker did not show that the committee substantively considered or “applied its mind” when declining the requests for virtual appearances.
The speaker has requested that the committee properly address the reasons provided by both witnesses. To proceed with a subpoena, the committee must demonstrate the following:
For O’Sullivan:
- Evidence that his application for virtual testimony was formally tabled.
- Proof that members considered his location abroad and the security threats cited.
- Any threat or risk assessment was considered.
- A record showing the committee deliberated on whether these factors constituted “exceptional circumstances”.
- Documentation showing that alternatives, such as testifying from an embassy, were evaluated and rejected on justifiable grounds.
For Mogotsi:
- Evidence that his security concerns and risk assessments were formally reviewed.
- An evaluation of the credibility of the risks raised.
- Any threat or risk assessment was considered.
- A reasoned conclusion, supported by the record, explaining why his concerns did not warrant special accommodation.
TimesLIVE
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.