By Johnathan Paoli
Parliament has found that controversial forensic examiner Paul O’Sullivan may have committed statutory offences after abruptly walking out of the ad-hoc committee proceedings while under examination, with the national legislature fully prepared with a summons should he fail to return to complete his testimony.
The opinion, delivered by Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office, was outlined during the committee’s sitting as part of an update on O’Sullivan’s conduct during hearings held last week Thursday.
The legal opinion was summarised by fellow legal advisor Telana Halley-Starkey from Parliament Legal Services, who told members that O’Sullivan’s conduct potentially triggered criminal liability.
“The central question, therefore, is twofold: what are the remedies available to this committee to compel Mr O’Sullivan to complete his examination and secondly, does his conduct constitute an offence or a contempt of Parliament?” she said.
Halley-Starkey explained that while certain provisions of the Act did not apply because O’Sullivan had not been formally summoned at the time, other sections were directly relevant.
“In leaving the proceedings prematurely, Mr O’Sullivan’s actions may reasonably be construed as interfering with or impeding the committee in the execution of its mandate,” she said, referring to section 7A of the Act.
She added that O’Sullivan’s departure “hampered the committee’s ability to discharge its functions”, particularly given that his evidence was material to allegations of political interference in police operations.
“Based on the analysis set out in the legal opinion before this committee, the Constitutional Legal Services Office is of the view that Mr O’Sullivan has potentially committed a statutory offence in terms of section 7A, read with section 27 of the Act,” Halley-Starkey concluded.
ALSO READ: Madlanga Commission postponed due to Mogotsi illness
“Furthermore, Mr O’Sullivan has potentially committed a statutory offence in terms of section 17C(1), given that he left while under examination and without the permission of the chairperson,” she added.
She stressed that while the committee had opted to invite O’Sullivan back voluntarily, it remained “firmly within its rights to invoke any of the above-mentioned legal remedies” if he failed to comply.
Earlier in the meeting, parliamentary legal advisor Andile Tetyana provided an update and reminded members that the committee had unanimously resolved that O’Sullivan must return to Parliament to finish his testimony.
“You will recall that on Thursday, and after Mr O’Sullivan had walked out of the committee proceedings without your permission, and in violation of the rules of the National Assembly and the Powers and Privileges Act, you posed a question to committee members whether it is their wish for Mr O’Sullivan to come back to the committee and complete his evidence,” Tetyana said.
“The committee resolved resoundingly that Mr O’Sullivan must come back and conclude his evidence, as he was still under examination when he walked out of the committee proceedings,” he added.
Tetyana confirmed that Parliament formally wrote to O’Sullivan last week, inviting him to appear before the committee on Thursday, and instructing him to indicate by 12pm on Monday whether he would comply.
“We can also confirm that in the event that Mr O’Sullivan does not comply with the committee’s invitation for him to appear before it, a summons has already been prepared in order to secure his attendance or his appearance,” he said.
The summons would be issued under section 56A of the Constitution, read with the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, and would require the concurrence of the Speaker of the National Assembly.
“The Speaker has been briefed in this regard. The Speaker indicated that she is at the service of the committee and will act as soon as she is formally briefed about what the committee has resolved,” Tetyana added, confirming that a request for concurrence had already been prepared should O’Sullivan refuse to return.
ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE| ActionSA’s Herman Mashaba vows to tackle corruption and revive Johannesburg
Committee chair Soviet Lekganyane as well as members agreed that should O’Sullivan not attend on Thursday, not only will a summons be issued, but he will be held in contempt.
However, evidence leader Norman Arendse did confirm that O’Sullivan agreed to appear.
“In relation to Mr O’Sullivan himself, he has confirmed that he will be in attendance on Thursday. One, to conclude the questioning by Advocate Mkhize. I think she had two or three questions left. And then, of course, to deal with the matter that has just been addressed. I’m not sure which one, obviously within your discretion, which one you deal with first,” Arendse said.
The committee is expected to proceed with O’Sullivan’s testimony on Thursday, with his assistant Sarah-Jane Trent expected to follow.