Private investigator Paul O’Sullivan has defended his conduct after being accused of sending threatening messages to witnesses appearing before parliament’s ad hoc committee.
The allegations involve several witnesses, including the police ministry’s chief of staff Cedrick Nkabinde and former NPA prosecutor Michael Masutha.
Nkabinde previously testified that he received a “threatening” message from O’Sullivan while testifying about the investigator’s alleged interference with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid).
Similarly, Masutha told the committee on Wednesday that he had endured years of harassment, intimidation and insults from O’Sullivan during past investigations.
During a tense cross-examination on Thursday, committee members confronted O’Sullivan, with some labelling his behaviour as that of a “bully”.
DA MP Damien Klopper noted that while he respected O’Sullivan’s age and experience, he could not condone his methods of communication.
“Where I find myself in conflict is when I read the words you have chosen to write,” Klopper said. “You have subsequently threatened people who have appeared as witnesses and testified before this committee.”
There is a very short distance between demonstrating toughness and becoming unnecessarily rude
— Damien Klopper, DA MP
Klopper further characterised the emails as “plainly rude” and “unprofessional”, arguing that such conduct was unacceptable, particularly when engaging with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He specifically rejected O’Sullivan’s use of personal attacks against witnesses and their families.
While Klopper acknowledged that O’Sullivan’s claims about certain individuals might contain truth — and that those individuals may indeed be hiding something — he warned of a fine line in professional conduct.
“There is a very short distance between demonstrating toughness and becoming unnecessarily rude. Being direct is necessary, but it can quickly become threatening. Being firm can quickly become attacking.”
Testifying on Thursday, O’Sullivan justified his actions, arguing that a tough facade was a necessary survival tactic born from his past experiences. He told the committee that in his line of work “you have to fight fire with fire”.
O’Sullivan expressed some regret over the tone of his emails but maintained they were a product of necessity.
“Unfortunately, it was necessary to take those steps,” O’Sullivan said. “With the benefit of hindsight, I might have done it slightly differently, but I realise that if I hadn’t fought hard, I or my family would be dead. I had to move my family overseas for their own protection.
“I apologise for being rude and taking the fight to them, but I realised if I didn’t, they would have beaten me and gotten away with what they were doing. It wasn’t done for any reason other than to demonstrate that I wasn’t going to be walked over. I wanted them to be aware that I was on to them.”
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.