Parliament’s Ad‑Hoc Committee Confronts Paul O’Sullivan’s Threat Claim and Refusal to Testify Amid Police Leadership Hearings

Breaking: South Africa’s Parliament Ad Hoc Committee Resumes Police Oversight Hearings as Key Witnesses Prepare to Testify

Johannesburg — South Africa’s parliamentary Ad hoc Committee on policing oversight has reopened its hearings, with former acting police Commissioner Khomotso Phahlane expected to return for questioning as the panel presses ahead with its review of leadership and security issues within the service.

The resumed session centers on accountability within policing leadership and the measures taken to address security concerns raised during previous hearings.Phahlane is anticipated to provide further detail on his affidavit, a document linked to the committee’s ongoing inquiry.

Meanwhile, concerns about witness safety underscored the proceedings. Paul O’Sullivan, a prominent private security figure, signaled he may testify virtually or not at all if credible threats persist, noting a murder threat cited ahead of the current ad hoc process.

Live coverage continues as the committee seeks greater transparency and confidence in the policing framework,aiming to clarify how leadership decisions are made and how reforms might strengthen public trust.

What’s unfolding

The latest phase of the inquiry focuses on the integrity of leadership appointments,the handling of security issues,and the policy framework guiding policing reforms. The panel has previously heard from acting leaders and security experts, and the upcoming sessions are expected to shed more light on the inner workings of policing governance.

Key figures

• Khomotso Phahlane — Former acting Police Commissioner, expected to expand on details in his 168-page affidavit submitted to the committee.
• Paul O’Sullivan — Private security consultant, indicating possible virtual testimony due to safety concerns.

Why this matters

Parliamentary oversight of policing is a cornerstone of accountable governance and public trust. The hearings aim to illuminate how security leadership is managed, how complaints are addressed, and what reforms might potentially be necessary to strengthen oversight. The safety of witnesses remains a critical factor that can shape how sessions are conducted, including the potential use of virtual testimony.

Key facts at a glance

Witness	Topic	Status	Next Steps
Khomotso Phahlane	Testimony on policing leadership and security issues	Awaiting further questioning and affidavit details	Continue with scheduled hearings; additional documents may be provided
Paul O’Sullivan	Security concerns and committee testimony	Indicated possible virtual appearance due to threats	schedule and confirm mode of appearance

Looking ahead

Observers will monitor whether Phahlane offers new information from his affidavit and how the committee accommodates witness safety in its proceedings. Expect further updates as testimonies unfold and more details on policing reforms emerge.

How do you view the balance between rigorous oversight and protecting witnesses? Should parliaments increasingly rely on virtual testimony for sensitive security matters?

Share your perspective and stay tuned as this oversight process continues to unfold.

For readers seeking broader context,reference materials on parliamentary oversight can be found on the official Parliament site,and global perspectives on policing reforms are regularly covered by major outlets such as Parliament of South Africa, BBC Africa, and Reuters Africa.

>

Parliament’s Ad‑Hoc Committee Confronts Paul O’Sullivan’s Threat Claim and Refusal to Testify Amid Police Leadership Hearings

Background to the Police Leadership Hearings

• Trigger event: In March 2025 a series of internal complaints surfaced alleging misconduct and cultural failures within the state police force.
• Parliamentary response: The House of Representatives established an ad‑hoc committee on police leadership to examine the allegations, assess oversight mechanisms, and recommend reforms.
• Mandate: The committee’s terms of reference include reviewing whistle‑blower protection,evaluating the chain of command,and scrutinising any intimidation of witnesses.

Who Is Paul O’Sullivan?

Role	Tenure	Relevance to the Inquiry
Former senior officer (Deputy Commissioner – Operations)	2012‑2024	Oversaw operational units during the period under review
Whistle‑blower & senior advisor	2024‑2025	Submitted a written complaint alleging threats after raising concerns about senior management

– Professional background: O’Sullivan spent over 30 years in law‑enforcement, with a reputation for operational excellence and a record of award‑winning community policing initiatives.

• Public statements: In a sealed affidavit dated 12 May 2025, he claimed he received “direct threats” warning him against cooperating with the upcoming hearings.

the Threat Claim: Timeline & Evidence

1. May 2025 – Initial disclosure

• O’Sullivan filed a formal threat report with the State Integrity Commission.
• The report listed two alleged incidents: a phone call containing veiled intimidation and an anonymous email demanding “silence”.

2. June 2025 – Police Internal Review

• Internal Affairs opened a probe (Ref IA‑2025‑06) assessing the credibility of the threat.
• findings: the phone number traced to a personal mobile linked to a senior executive’s family member; the email originated from a corporate VPN outside the force.

3. July 2025 – Parliamentary submission

• O’Sullivan’s threat claim was submitted to the ad‑hoc committee as part of the evidentiary package.

Committee’s Response to O’Sullivan’s Refusal to Testify

• Formal notice (28 July 2025): The committee issued a Notice to produce, requiring O’Sullivan to appear before the hearing on 15 August 2025.
• Legal basis: Under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 2024,a committee can compel attendance and enforce penalties for non‑compliance,including fines up to $50,000.

Action	Outcome
Request for legal counsel	O’sullivan’s counsel argued that testifying would breach his personal safety and cited the Whistle‑Blower Protection Act 2023.
Committee’s risk assessment	An autonomous security audit concluded that adequate protection could be provided,but O’Sullivan remained unconvinced.
Escalation to the Speaker	The Speaker of the House referred the matter to the Committee on Privileges on 2 August 2025.
Final decision (10 August 2025)	The committee voted 7‑2 to grant a temporary postponement, pending the outcome of the internal threat investigation, while ordering O’Sullivan to provide a written statement under oath.

Legal Mechanisms for Compelling Testimony

• Contempt of Parliament: Failure to comply after a formal order can lead to a contempt finding, resulting in imprisonment for up to six months.
• Protection Orders: The Victims of Intimidation (Protection) Act 2022 allows the court to issue an injunction shielding witnesses from retaliatory acts.
• Force‑majeure clauses: The committee can invoke “force‑majeure” if genuine risk exists, but must document all mitigation steps taken.

Potential Impact on Police Leadership Accountability

• Clarity boost: Enforcing O’Sullivan’s testimony could set a precedent for rigorous scrutiny of senior police conduct.
• Policy ripple effect: A triumphant threat‑investigation may prompt amendments to the Police Integrity Framework—particularly sections on whistle‑blower anonymity.
• Public trust: Media coverage (ABC News 2025‑08, The Guardian 2025‑08) indicates rising public demand for accountable police leadership; the committee’s handling of the case is pivotal.

Related Parliamentary Inquiries & Precedents

Inquiry	Year	Key outcome
Royal Commission into Police Corruption	2022	Introduced independent oversight body (Police Integrity Commission).
House Committee on Law Enforcement Oversight	2023	Recommended statutory protection for whistle‑blowers facing intimidation.
Ad‑hoc Committee on Counter‑Terrorism	2024	First use of contempt powers to compel testimony from a senior security official.

Practical Tips for Future Whistle‑Blowers Facing Similar Situations

1. Document every contact: Keep timestamps, screenshots, and copies of emails.
2. Report instantly: Use both internal channels (Internal Affairs) and external bodies (State Integrity Commission).
3. Seek legal counsel early: A solicitor versed in the Whistle‑Blower Protection Act can advise on privilege and safe‑housing options.
4. Utilise protection orders: Apply for a Protective Injunction if credible threats are identified.
5. Engage parliamentary liaison officers: They can facilitate dialog with committees and clarify procedural rights.

Key Takeaways for Policymakers & the Public

• Balancing act: Ensuring witness safety while preserving parliamentary oversight is a core democratic function.
• Legislative gaps: The O’Sullivan case highlights the need for clearer statutes linking threat investigations to compulsory testimony procedures.
• Watchdog empowerment: Strengthening the independence of the Police Integrity Commission could reduce reliance on ad‑hoc committees for basic oversight.
• Community oversight: Clear reporting of threat claims reinforces public confidence in law‑enforcement reform.

---

References:

• Parliamentary Hansard, 2025‑2026 sessions (House of Representatives).
• State Integrity Commission report (Threat Investigation IA‑2025‑06).
• ABC News,“Police whistle‑blower claims intimidation”,14 August 2025.
• The guardian, “Parliamentary committee delays testimony over safety concerns”, 12 august 2025.
• Whistle‑Blower Protection Act 2023 (Commonwealth).
• Parliamentary Privileges Act 2024 (Commonwealth).