By Johnathan Paoli
The prosecutor who charged forensic examiner Paul O’Sullivan has told Parliament that sustained interference, intimidation and what he described as the “infiltration” of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) contributed to delays that ultimately saw the Kameeldrift matter struck off the roll, and never re-enrolled.
Appearing before the ad-hoc committee on Wednesday, former NPA prosecutor, advocate Molatlhwa Mashuga, was called to explain why case 1201/2017 involving O’Sullivan and others impersonating IPID officers was removed from the court roll and has not proceeded since.
Evidence leader Norman Arendse reminded the committee that the matter “was struck off the roll in terms of 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act some seven, nine years ago and has not been re-enrolled and the Honourable Committee was rightly concerned why that has not been the case”.
Mashuga testified that after being allocated the docket in February 2017, he identified multiple offences, including intimidation, extortion, fraud, conspiracy; including alleged threats against former acting National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Khomotso Phahlane.
“I identified that there was intimidation where he was told that he will be imprisoned. His house will be sold at an auction by O’Sullivan and he would buy it at an auction and sell it just like he did with the house of [Radovan] Krejcir,” Mashuga said.
He said fraud charges stemmed from alleged misrepresentations to Sable Hills Waterfront estate manager Chris Jooste that O’Sullivan and his associates were IPID investigators entitled to access confidential house plans.
Mashugu further alleged that O’Sullivan drafted witness statements containing false information without interviewing the witnesses, adding that the statements falsely suggested Phahlane had encouraged non-cooperation with IPID.
The former prosecutor insisted that IPID’s investigation into Phahlane had been compromised by private actors.
“In terms of whether Mr Paul O’Sullivan and Ms Sarah-Jane Trent were entitled to involve themselves in this investigation…the IPID investigation at that stage was not independent because it was infiltrated by and led by Mr O’Sullivan and Ms Trent,” he said.
He cited provisions of the IPID Act requiring investigations to be independent and impartial, and prohibiting officials from acting where they have financial or other interests.
He told MPs that O’Sullivan had contributed R200,000 to the legal expenses of former IPID head Robert McBride during his suspension.
“That amounts to gratification in terms of the Act,” Mashuga said, arguing there was a “quid pro quo, value for value”.
He also detailed allegations that credit bureau records of private citizens and witnesses were accessed without lawful basis.
“They cannot be liable in terms of the contravention of the Act because there was no complaint of fraud made to them in the first place,” he said.
Mashuga testified that answering affidavits filed in civil proceedings contained false denials of O’Sullivan’s involvement in IPID investigations, disputing claims that the investigator “merely assisted in the preliminary stages”.
“We all know that O’Sullivan was deeply involved in the investigation process undertaken by IPID,” he said.
He further described what he called a “plethora of threatening and insulting emails” sent to him.
In one message, O’Sullivan allegedly wrote: “I’m closing in on all of you, you are rotting in jail.”
Mashuga said such conduct contravened section 32(1)(b) of the NPA Act, which prohibits interference with prosecutors.
“His email was to the effect that because you are prosecuting me, I am doing a revenge by investigating him. That is exactly extortion,” he testified.
While the magistrate ordered the case struck off the roll due to delays under section 342A, Mashuga told MPs he had made an attempt to place evidence before this Committee explaining the delay as well as the 342A(3)(c) reasons.
According to correspondence from the NDPP’s office, racketeering charges under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) required authorisation, and a supervisor had held the view there was insufficient evidence for racketeering, directing reconsideration of charges.
The prosecution decision was subsequently delayed, and Mashuga later resigned.
Mashuga maintained that, at the time, “there was more than sufficient evidence that I relied on to prosecute those people.”
The committee continues.
INSIDE POLITICS