O’Sullivan, MPs clash over his refusal to discuss personal history before 1990

Members of parliament’s ad-hoc committee investigating allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system got off to a rocky start on Tuesday, as they clashed withcertified fraud investigator Paul O’Sullivanduring his testimony after he said he would not answer questions regarding his personal life before 1990. Making his first physical appearance before the committee, O’Sullivan’s affidavit, which is before parliament, had a reservation that immediately drew fire from MPs. “At the outset, for reasons of personal and family security, I will not engage in discussions concerning my family, background, education, or business interests in South Africa or overseas prior to 1990,” O’Sullivan said.

“I do confirm that I am a citizen of three countries and resultantly hold three passports: Ireland, Britain, and South Africa.” EFF leader Julius Malemawas the first to voice concern, arguing that a witness cannot dictate the terms of their own cross-examination. “I don’t think it’s right for the witness to write his own questions and answers, or to tell us we can’t ask about anything that happened before 1990,” Malema said. O’Sullivan cited his personal safety as the primary reason for his reservation.

He claimed there had been 10 attempts on his life in the past 15 years, including an incident in 1996 in which he was shot three times He argued that if allegations of wrongdoing or business conflicts arose from that period, MPs should have the right to probe them. “It cannot be correct, especially after taking an oath to answer every question truthfully.” “It smells like supremacy; we cannot sit here with a clear conscience and allow it to proceed like that.”