I don’t think it’s right for the witness to write his own questions and answers: Julius Malema

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 with certified fraud investigator Paul O’Sullivan during 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.

He did, however, clarify his nationality.

“I do confirm that I am a citizen of three countries and resultantly hold three passports: Ireland, Britain, and South Africa.”

EFF leader Julius Malema was 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.

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.”

Malema called for the statement to be withdrawn.

“It smells like supremacy; we cannot sit here with a clear conscience and allow it to proceed like that.”

MK Party MP David Skosana agreed, noting that O’Sullivan’s own evidence statement made reference to events occurring before 1990, making the restriction contradictory.

ANC MP Xola Nqola echoed the sentiments.

“The oath you have administered states the witness must answer questions fully and satisfactorily. Beyond that, I don’t know how an educational background can become a security hazard.”

In response, 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.

“Unfortunately, the criminal element … they try to find out things about you of a personal nature,” O’Sullivan said.

“They want to know where your business interests are, where your children live and where your properties are. I made it clear that I won’t provide any of that information.”

He remained defiant despite the pressure from the committee.

“We can sit here all day; you can ask me a million questions, and I will not provide that information. I am entitled to protect my personal interests and my family.”

O’Sullivan, who mentioned he had seven children, refused to disclose their names or locations, citing “dirty games” played by the criminals he has exposed. He further argued that his oath to tell “the whole truth” did not strip him of the right to withhold sensitive personal data.

Committee chair Soviet Lekganyane ultimately rejected O’Sullivan’s request for immunity from pre-1990 questioning.

“That paragraph (on his evidence statement) does not belong here. We do not accept it,” Lekganyane said.

He ruled that since O’Sullivan’s own statement references dates and events from that era, members of the committee were entitled to ask questions about them — particularly regarding any allegations levelled against him during that period.

The hearing continues.

TimesLIVE