By Johnathan Paoli
Controversial forensic examiner Paul O’Sullivan has defended a highly aggressive email he sent to former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane, claiming that the tone was justified by the circumstances at the time, amid accusations of bullying witnesses, police officials and members of Parliament.
Appearing before the ad-hoc committee on Thursday morning, O’Sullivan defended the message, arguing that it reflected the seriousness of the corruption allegations and the threats he believed he faced at the time.
“Given the circumstances at the time, it was more than appropriate. I apologise for being rude and for taking the fight to them,” he said.
“But I realised that if I did not fight hard, I or my family could be dead,” O’Sullivan told the committee.
Pressed by MPs about the language in the email, O’Sullivan said he had received death threats linked to individuals connected to the investigation and insisted the tone of his communication must be understood in that context.
Later in the session, O’Sullivan acknowledged that his approach could sometimes appear confrontational.
The 26 November 2016 email, read into the record during the committee’s proceedings, contained scathing language directed at Phahlane.
The email resurfaced during testimony by former NPA prosecutor advocate Michael Mashuga on Wednesday, who told the committee that O’Sullivan’s conduct raised legal questions involving both the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act and the National Credit Act.
The hearing was dominated by sharp exchanges between O’Sullivan and MPs who accused him of using intimidation tactics in his dealings with witnesses and political figures.
EFF leader Julius Malema accused O’Sullivan of attempting to silence critics by weaponising personal information.
“You are continuing with your style of silencing people, intimidating people. And you thought Honourable Skosana was those kind of people who will sheepishly just disappear by you telling them about their private and personal matters,” Malema said.
Malema went further, suggesting O’Sullivan had developed a reputation as a bully.
“That fits very well into the narrative that you have become this bully in the country where you do as you wish,” Malema said.
The confrontation followed a dispute involving MKP MP David Skosana, who asked O’Sullivan to retract claims he made previously that Skosana owed a bank R600,000.
Skosana criticised what he described as arrogance in O’Sullivan’s conduct toward the committee, adding that it amounted to intimidation.
“The arrogance is on a high level. That tells me that even before you came in here, you investigated all of us because you are calling us crooks. We’ve been tolerating this white supremacy for many years in this country,” he said
DA MP Damian Klopper also criticised O’Sullivan’s approach, warning that fighting corruption did not justify abusive language.
“Passion for justice cannot replace discipline in your behaviour, the language you use, and how you approach people. You fight corruption on one hand, but on the other you front as a white man,” Klopper said.
Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane repeatedly intervened to calm proceedings, warning both MPs and witnesses against using inflammatory language.
“We are probing allegations. Both of you must refrain from using those words to describe any person coming before us,” Lekganyane said.
Meanwhile, EFF MP Leigh-Anne Mathys questioned O’Sullivan about his financial declarations and previous legal matters while probing his credibility.
On Wednesday, Mashuga testified that O’Sullivan had acknowledged paying R200,000 toward the legal costs of former Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) head Robert McBride during McBride’s suspension.
According to Mashuga, O’Sullivan later characterised the payment as a “forbearance” that allowed him to become involved in investigations into Phahlane.
Both O’Sullivan and McBride have defended the arrangement, arguing that access to credit or financial support is a legitimate right.
Mathys questioned O’Sullivan about the payment.
“So you are confirming that?” Mathys asked.
“That’s correct. In fact, we paid it to the attorneys,” O’Sullivan replied.
Earlier in the day, O’Sullivan read into the record an “unreserved apology” to parliament for leaving the hearing last week Thursday, acknowledging the disruption caused to the committee.
“I unreservedly apologise to the Speaker of the National Assembly and all members of Parliament, including but not limited to the Chairman and members of the Ad Hoc Committee, for departing from the Ad Hoc Committee at 13.15 on 2026-02-26,” he said.
The committee continues.
INSIDE POLITICS
