O’Sullivan to return to Parliament as legal opinion flags possible offence
Forensic investigator Paul O'Sullivan is expected to return to an ad hoc committee hearing on Thursday after walking out of proceedings last week, as Parliament confirmed it is prepared to compel his attendance if necessary.
The committee, probing alleged political interference in the justice system, resolved that O’Sullivan must return to complete his unfinished testimony after leaving the hearing while still under examination.
Parliament’s legal advisor, Andile Tetyana, told MPs on Monday that the committee had formally invited O’Sullivan to reappear and had already taken steps to secure his attendance should he fail to comply.
"Chairperson, you will recall that on Thursday, the 26th of February 2026, 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.
"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."
Tetyana confirmed the committee issued formal correspondence requiring O’Sullivan to indicate whether he would return.
"We can confirm that on Friday, the 27th of February 2026, we addressed correspondence to Mr O'Sullivan, inviting him to appear before this committee on Thursday, 5 March 2026, as he was still under examination when he decided to abandon committee proceedings without the permission of the chairperson.
"Chairperson, may I also add that Mr O'Sullivan has been put on notice that we have informed him to indicate to you his willingness to appear before the committee by no later than today, at 12 noon."
He warned that legal enforcement mechanisms are already in place should O’Sullivan fail to cooperate.
"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.
"The summons procedure is provided for in section 56A of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, read with section 142B of the Powers and Privileges Act."
Tetyana added that the process requires the involvement of parliamentary leadership.
"The Powers and Privileges Act requires that a summons must be issued by the Secretary to Parliament on the instructions of the chairperson of the committee concerned, acting in accordance with the resolution of the committee and with the concurrence of the Speaker of the National Assembly.
"The Speaker is at the service of the committee and will act as soon as she is formally briefed about what the committee has resolved in this regard."
Meanwhile, a legal opinion presented to MPs indicates that O’Sullivan’s walkout may itself have legal consequences.
Legal adviser Telana Halley-Starkey told members that they had requested legal clarity on how to compel O’Sullivan to complete his testimony and whether his conduct amounted to contempt of Parliament.
"National Assembly Rule 183 requires any person appearing before a committee, including legal representatives, to observe the directions of and conform to the procedures determined by the chairperson.
"In this instance, Mr O’Sullivan stood up and left the proceedings despite requests from the chairperson and members that he remain seated and complete his testimony."
She said that even though O’Sullivan had not been formally summoned at the time, his conduct could still fall within provisions that prohibit interference with parliamentary functions.
"On a plain and grammatical interpretation, the term ‘impede’ denotes conduct that obstructs or hinders the progression of Parliament’s work.
"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."
Halley-Starkey stressed that his testimony is central to the inquiry.
"The Committee’s terms of reference require it to assess the veracity of allegations advanced by various witnesses, including that of Mr O’Sullivan, whose evidence was material, particularly in relation to allegations of political interference in police operations.
"His departure before completing his examination, therefore, hampered the committee’s ability to discharge its functions."
She also warned that failing to fully answer lawful questions while under examination may constitute a separate offence.
"Given that Mr O’Sullivan left while under examination and without the permission of the chairperson, the applicable provisions indicate that a person who fails without sufficient cause to answer fully and satisfactorily any questions lawfully put to them may be committing an offence."
The legal opinion confirms that Parliament retains the authority to compel witnesses to appear.
"The National Assembly and its committees are empowered by the Constitution to summon any person to appear before them to give evidence.
"The committee is therefore at liberty to invoke its summonsing powers and is firmly within its rights to pursue the legal remedies available should Mr O’Sullivan not comply with its invitation to return."
O’Sullivan left the hearing, citing a need to catch a flight, despite requests from the chairperson and committee members for him to remain to complete his testimony.
The inquiry into alleged political interference in the justice system is continuing.
ALSO READ
