Parliament defends Speaker Thoko Didiza against claims of shielding Paul O’Sullivan and Brian Mogotsi
Parliament has denied claims that National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza is protecting forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan and North West businessman Brown Mogotsi, from appearing before the ad hoc committee, saying the allegations “mischaracterise both her role and the legal basis for her decisions.”
Didiza’s decision not to approve subpoenas for O’Sullivan and Mogotsi has split the ad hoc committee probing allegations of police corruption.
The ANC has backed her approach, while opposition parties, including the EFF and the MK Party, accuse her of shielding the two men from accountability.
Parliament insists Didiza acted in line with relevant legislation when she declined the committee’s request to compel O’Sullivan, who is currently abroad and Mogotsi to appear physically before it.
Both witnesses have refused to testify in person, citing security concerns they say Parliament has not addressed.
“The assertions that the Speaker is protecting these individuals are incorrect and mischaracterise both the Speaker’s role and the legal basis upon which the decisions were taken,” Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said.
The ad hoc committee was established to investigate allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Mothapo said Didiza’s decisions followed a “careful and considered assessment” of the committee’s requests and were not taken arbitrarily.
“They are firmly grounded in the constitutional and legal framework governing Parliament’s powers,” he said, citing the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, National Assembly rules and the principle that Parliament must act lawfully and rationally to avoid unnecessary judicial review.
On O’Sullivan, Mothapo said records before the Speaker show he has not refused to appear.
Instead, he applied to testify virtually, an option allowed under the committee’s terms of reference.
“O’Sullivan is currently outside the Republic and has raised concerns relating to his personal safety,” Mothapo said.
He added that O’Sullivan offered to testify from a South African embassy abroad, provided the specific location was not publicly disclosed for security reasons.
The problem with issuing a summons, Mothapo said, is that the committee’s records do not show it properly considered O’Sullivan’s reasons for requesting a virtual appearance.
“There is no indication that the committee applied its mind to whether his circumstances amounted to exceptional circumstances under its own terms of reference, or to sufficient cause as contemplated in law,” he said.
Under the Powers and Privileges Act, a summons may only be issued if a witness fails or refuses to appear without sufficient cause.
“On the information placed before the Speaker, that legal threshold has not been met,” Mothapo said, warning that proceeding regardless could weaken Parliament’s position if challenged in court.
He added that O’Sullivan has cooperated by engaging virtually with the committee’s evidence leaders and by submitting a written statement.
A similar issue arises with Mogotsi, Mothapo said.
Records do not show the committee adequately engaged with the personal security concerns he raised about appearing in person.
Mogotsi has indicated a willingness to cooperate and has participated in virtual consultations with evidence leaders. He requested that appropriate security measures be considered, given the sensitivity of the evidence he intends to present.
“In the absence of proof that the committee properly applied its mind to these concerns – including whether any threat or risk assessment was conducted – the Speaker could not be satisfied that a refusal to appear without sufficient cause had been established,” Mothapo said.
He said Didiza had asked the committee to properly engage with the reasons advanced by both witnesses and to demonstrate, through minutes and formal resolutions, how those concerns were considered and addressed.
In O’Sullivan’s case, this includes showing that his request to testify virtually was formally tabled, his reasons were considered, alternatives were assessed and a reasoned, legally justifiable decision was recorded.
Mothapo said for Mogotsi, Didiza requires evidence that his security concerns were formally considered, the credibility of the risks assessed, proposed security measures evaluated and a reasoned conclusion reached.
“The issuing of a summons is a serious legal measure and must remain an act of last resort,” Mothapo said.
“The Speaker’s actions do not protect individuals from accountability; they protect the integrity, lawfulness and credibility of Parliament and its committees.”
simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za
IOL Politics