Marcus Moloko
Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee hearing turned into a political theatre of confrontation on Monday, when forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan clashed with Members of Parliament over what he could disclose to the committee and what he deemed a safety concern.
MPs opposed the notion that O’ Sullivan could choose which questions to answer and which to refuse.
ALSO READ: Civil society asks Ramaphosa to block murder-accused Solly Lechoenyo’s Special Forces promotion
What was expected to be a straightforward testimony quickly escalated into a combative exchange, with MPs pressing O’Sullivan on transparency, credibility, and his role in shaping investigations into government officials.
Here are five explosive allegations from O’Sullivan’s testimony
Refusal to discuss pre-1990 history
O’Sullivan stunned MPs by flatly refusing to answer questions about his personal history before 1990, citing “security concerns.” Parliamentarians said that such secrecy undermined the committee’s mandate, accusing him of deliberately withholding information. His refusal
You’ve reached your free article limit
Subscribe to enjoy unlimited access to trusted journalism. Cancel anytime.
Subscribe nowNeed help? molokom@insidepolitic.co.za
