Parliament has rejected claims that the National Assembly Speaker is protecting or shielding certain witnesses from appearing before the Ad Hoc Committee investigating serious allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal SAPS provincial commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
In a detailed statement issued on Friday, Parliament said recent media reports suggesting that the Speaker intervened to prevent Paul O’Sullivan and Brian Mogotsi from testifying were incorrect and misrepresented both the Speaker’s constitutional role and the legal framework governing parliamentary processes.
“The Speaker’s actions do not protect individuals from accountability; they protect the integrity, lawfulness and credibility of Parliament and its committees,” Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said.
According to Parliament, the Speaker’s decisions regarding both witnesses were taken after a careful and considered assessment of the Ad Hoc Committee’s requests and were not arbitrary. Mothapo said the decisions were firmly grounded in the Constitution, the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, the Rules of the National Assembly and the principle that Parliament must act rationally and lawfully to avoid exposing its work to unnecessary judicial review.
With regard to O’Sullivan, Parliament said records before the Speaker showed that he had not refused to appear before the committee. Instead, he formally applied to testify virtually, a process expressly allowed under the committee’s own Terms of Reference. These Terms permit witnesses who have compelling reasons not to appear physically to apply for a virtual appearance.
O’Sullivan’s request was based on the fact that he is currently outside South Africa and has raised concerns relating to his personal safety. In an attempt to accommodate the committee, he also offered to testify from a South African embassy abroad, on condition that the specific embassy not be publicly disclosed for security reasons.
However, Mothapo said the difficulty with the committee’s request to issue a summons was that the records submitted to the Speaker did not demonstrate that the committee had substantively engaged with or applied its mind to the reasons O’Sullivan advanced.
“There is no indication on the record that the committee considered whether his circumstances amounted to exceptional circumstances under its own Terms of Reference or to sufficient cause as contemplated in law,” Mothapo said.
He explained that, in terms of the Powers and Privileges Act, a summons may only be lawfully issued where a witness has failed or refused to appear without sufficient cause. On the information placed before the Speaker, that legal threshold had not been met.
“To proceed with a summons in these circumstances could materially weaken Parliament’s position should the matter be challenged in court,” Mothapo added.
Parliament also placed on record that O’Sullivan has cooperated with the Ad Hoc Committee by engaging virtually with its evidence leaders and by submitting a written statement.
A similar position was taken in the case of Mogotsi. Parliament said the records before the Speaker did not demonstrate that the committee had properly engaged with the personal security concerns Mogotsi raised in relation to appearing physically before the committee.
Mogotsi has indicated his willingness to cooperate fully with the investigation and has participated in virtual consultations with the committee’s evidence leaders. However, he requested that appropriate security measures be considered due to the sensitive nature 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 and whether the security measures proposed were reasonable, the Speaker could not be satisfied that a refusal to appear without sufficient cause had been established,” Mothapo said.
As a result, the Speaker has requested that the committee properly engage with the concerns raised by both witnesses and demonstrate through its minutes and formal resolutions how those issues were considered and addressed.
In O’Sullivan’s case, this includes showing that his virtual appearance application was formally tabled, that members considered his reasons, that alternatives such as testifying virtually or from an embassy were evaluated, and that a reasoned, legally justifiable decision was reached and properly recorded.
For Mogotsi, the Speaker has requested evidence that his security concerns were formally tabled, assessed for credibility, subjected to any threat or risk evaluation, and that a reasoned conclusion was reached on whether accommodation was justified.
Mothapo stressed that the issuing of a summons is a serious legal measure and must remain an act of last resort.
“It cannot be invoked lightly or without meeting the strict legal requirements set out in law. To do so risks undermining the credibility of Parliament’s processes and exposing them to avoidable judicial review,” he said.
He reiterated that the Speaker’s actions were aimed at safeguarding the rule of law and the credibility of Parliament, not shielding individuals from scrutiny or accountability.
