“I didn’t come here just to defend myself against the allegations of these criminals.”
These were the parting words of forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan as he concluded his first day of testimony before parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system on Tuesday.
O’Sullivan, who was guided by the evidence leader during his evidence statement, is expected to conclude his testimony on Wednesday, when he will face cross-examination by MPs.
The day was marked by procedural friction after MPs criticised evidence leader Norman Arendse for the slow pace of the proceedings. When committee chair Soviet Lekganyane asked how much more time was required, Arendse requested three hours for Wednesday. However, Lekganyane rejected the request, allotting only one hour to ensure MPs had sufficient time for cross-examination.
MK party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo was particularly vocal in his criticism of Arendse.
“He allows the witness to dwell on peripheral issues unrelated to the questions asked,” Nomvalo said. “He is not providing proper guidance to the witness, and that is why we are wasting time.”
EFF leader Julius Malema supported the one-hour limit, insisting that committee members be given ample time to probe the witness. He warned O’Sullivan to prepare for a rigorous session.
“The talk of his achievements ends today [Tuesday],” Malema said. “Tomorrow [Wednesday], he will have to answer to the allegations made against him. We will make sure he answers them.”
O’Sullivan’s testimony on Tuesday focused primarily on his professional background and his history of rooting out corruption. He has yet to formally address allegations against him by previous witnesses, including KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and police ministry chief of staff Cedric Nkabinde. Both have accused O’Sullivan of wielding “undue influence” over the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.
The investigator’s physical appearance followed a rejected request to testify virtually due to security concerns. Malema argued that since the committee had gone to great lengths to ensure O’Sullivan’s physical presence, the questioning should not be cut short.
“We cannot search for O’Sullivan only to be denied the opportunity to question him because the process is being deliberately prolonged,” Malema said. “We won’t be rushed when our time comes to ask proper questions.”
Tension peaked when O’Sullivan threatened to withdraw his co-operation, reacting sharply to the suggestion that he was there primarily to be interrogated on his detractors’ claims.
“Am I to understand that instead of giving evidence, I have come here to be interrogated on allegations made against me by criminals?” O’Sullivan asked. “If that is why I am here, I am going to withdraw my cooperation. I am not going to assist in a kangaroo court; I came here to give evidence about corruption in the criminal justice system.”
O’Sullivan maintained that it would take more than an hour to address what he termed “false allegations” and a “pack of lies” peddled by witnesses who “belong in prison”.
He argued that those accusations were a direct retaliation for his efforts to hold those individuals accountable.
“It is imperative that the full story be told, not half the story,” he emphasised. “The reality is that those allegations were only made against me because I took steps to hold them accountable for their criminal conduct.”
Lekganyane clarified that the cross-examination process was a standard part of giving evidence and assured O’Sullivan he would have the opportunity to respond to all queries.
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.