Parliament denies shielding O’Sullivan, Mogotsi over subpoena decision

Parliament has dismissed allegations it is protecting forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan and businessman Brown Mogotsi by shielding them from appearing physically before the ad hoc committee investigating allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system. This is after National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza expressed reluctance to approve the committee’s request to subpoena the pair, citing legal and safety concerns as the primary reasons fordeclining to issue summonsat this stage. Both O’Sullivan and Mogotsi requested to testify virtually, citing personal security risks.

O’Sullivan, currently abroad, cited “credible death threats” as the reason he cannot travel to South Africa. He offered to testify from a South African embassy on the condition that the specific location remain confidential for his safety. Mogotsi requested that parliament fund a personal security detail if he were to appear in person.

Didiza argued that the committee had failed to “sufficiently engage” with these requests or provide reasonable legal grounds for refusing them. The speaker’s decisions were made after a careful and considered assessment of the committee’s requests The speaker’s decision sparked a sharp divide within the ad hoc committee. While the ANC supported Didiza’s approach, opposition parties, including the EFF and the MK Party, accused her of “shielding” specific witnesses from accountability.

[paywall]

Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo dismissed these claims, clarifying that the speaker’s decision was made after careful consideration. “These assertions are incorrect and mischaracterise both the speaker’s role and the legal basis upon which the decisions were taken,” Mothapo said. “The speaker’s decisions were made after a careful and considered assessment of the committee’s requests.” Mothapo emphasised that the speaker’s actions were intended to protect the integrity, lawfulness and credibility of parliament rather than any specific individual.

According to parliamentary records, the two witnesses have not refused to testify. Instead, they formally applied for a virtual hearing, an option permitted under the committee’s own terms of reference.

[/paywall]