Proceedings before Parliament’s SAPS Ad Hoc Committee were delayed on Tuesday after forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan declined to answer questions relating to events prior to 1990, citing personal and family security concerns.
O’Sullivan, who appeared before the committee as part of its ongoing inquiry, told Members of Parliament that he would not engage on matters concerning his family background, education, or business interests in South Africa or abroad from before that period.
He said the decision was based on safety risks, claiming he had survived multiple assassination attempts over the years.
“For personal security, over the last 15 years there have been 10 attempts on my life. I was shot three times,” O’Sullivan told the committee. “Criminal elements try to find personal things about you. I’m not going to provide any of that information. We can sit here all day you can ask me a million questions I will not provide that information. I’m entitled to protect my family and my personal interests.”
However, MPs rejected his position, insisting that he could not set conditions on his testimony after taking an oath to provide full and truthful answers.
EFF leader Julius Malema said witnesses are obligated to respond to all relevant questions.
“When he took an oath, he committed to answer all the questions and do so truthfully,” Malema said. “I don’t think it is correct for the witness to write his own questions and answer them. What if there is an allegation that happened before 1990? He must answer every question presented here.”
MK Party MP Mandla Skosana also challenged O’Sullivan’s stance, noting what he described as inconsistencies in his affidavit, which referenced events dating back before 1990.
ANC MP Xola Nqola echoed the criticism, questioning how basic personal information such as educational background could pose a security threat.
“We shouldn’t accept that there are matters before 1990 that should not be responded to,” Nqola said.
The disagreement stalled parts of the session, with the committee expected to deliberate further on how to proceed with the testimony.