South Africa’s Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations of criminality and political interference within the criminal justice system has dismissed requests for virtual testimony from two key witnesses, Paul O’Sullivan and Brown Mogotsi.
The Ad Hoc Committee is examining claims made by Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, which include allegations of corruption, political interference and misconduct involving senior figures in the justice system. Proceedings are due to resume on Wednesday, 14 January 2025, when O’Sullivan and Mogotsi are expected to appear as witnesses.
During a virtual meeting to finalise the list of remaining witnesses, both O’Sullivan and Mogotsi asked to testify remotely, citing fears for their personal safety. However, Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema argued strongly against the request, saying Parliament should take all necessary steps to ensure their physical presence.
Malema told the committee that appearing in person was a matter of respect for South Africa’s laws and institutions. “No one is above South Africa’s Constitution,” he said, adding that the authority of the Ad Hoc Committee must be upheld.
His view was echoed by African National Congress MP Xola Nqola, who said the witnesses should not be given a choice about how they appear. He argued that the committee had the power to compel attendance and should use it if necessary.
The debate has drawn widespread public attention, with many South Africans expressing support for the committee’s firm stance. Several commentators on social media said the witnesses should be summoned formally if they fail to attend, pointing to previous parliamentary inquiries where non-compliance had serious consequences.
Others said the appearance of O’Sullivan and Mogotsi in person would be an important test of the credibility and effectiveness of the Ad Hoc Committee. Some also argued that allowing virtual testimony in high-profile cases could undermine public confidence in parliamentary oversight.
The committee has not indicated that it will reconsider its position. Its decision signals a tougher approach as Parliament seeks to assert its authority and ensure accountability in an investigation that could have far-reaching implications for South Africa’s criminal justice system.
