National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza has expressed her “disinclination” to grant the request of parliament’s ad hoc committee to subpoena businessman Brown Mogotsi and private forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan. The committee had sought to compel both men to appear physically for testimony. The two had asked to testify virtually, citing serious security concerns.
The committee rejected these requests and resolved to write to the speaker to invoke subpoena powers, which would mandate their in-person attendance. However, such a summons can only be issued with the speaker’s formal concurrence. O’Sullivan, who is currently overseas, cited credible death threats as the reason for his inability to travel.Mogotsi asked parliament to fund his personal security detailas a condition if he had to appear in person.
The committee is investigating allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system. O’Sullivan and Mogotsi have been frequently mentioned by previous witnesses: Mogotsi for his alleged corrupt relationship with suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu and alleged criminal mastermind Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, and O’Sullivan for allegations that he was effectively “in charge” of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate. In a letter to the committee, Didiza noted she was informed of the security issues raised by both individuals.
Read Full Article on Daily Dispatch
[paywall]
She argued that because the committee failed to provide proof that it had meaningfully engaged with these concerns, she was reluctant to grant the subpoenas. “From the records available, Mogotsi has stated he will continue to co-operate, provided the committee accords him personal protection,” Didiza said. “I am unable to rebut this claim in the absence of proof that a formal threat and risk assessment was actually conducted.” Regarding O’Sullivan, Didiza warned that denying an application for virtual testimony without a sound reason could lead to legal trouble.
“I am advised that his application to appear virtually cannot be withheld unreasonably, as doing so constitutes a reviewable ground under the principle of legality.” Should the matter proceed to court, parliament would be required to prove it acted reasonably in addressing the witnesses’ safety fears, she said. Mogotsi and O’Sullivan have been engaging with the committee’s evidence leaders via a virtual platform, and their statements have been furnished to the evidence leaders.
[/paywall]
