Cape Town – Amid rising discontent, Parliament has explained why Speaker Thoko Didiza declined the Ad Hoc Committee’s request for a summons to compel Paul O’Sullivan and Brown Mogotsi to appear in person.
Responding to reports suggesting that the Speaker was protecting or shielding O’Sullivan and Mogotsi from appearing before the Ad Hoc Committee, Parliament on Friday, 6 February 2926, said these assertions were incorrect.
“These assertions are incorrect and mischaracterise both the Speaker’s role and the legal basis upon which the decisions in question were taken,” Parliament said in a statement made available to The Bulrushes.
O’Sullivan has not refused to appear before the Committee.
Instead, he formally applied to testify virtually.
Mogotsi has indicated his willingness to cooperate and has participated in virtual consultations with the evidence leaders.
He requested that appropriate security measures be considered, given the nature and sensitivity of the evidence he intends to present.
However, the Ad Hoc Committee, which is investigating allegations made by the South African Police Service’s KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, insists that both witnesses appear before it in person.
In that regard, Parliament pointed out that the Committee’s own Terms of Reference expressly permit a witness to testify virtually.
“These Terms allow a witness who has compelling grounds not to appear physically to apply to testify via a virtual platform,” Parliament stated.
“The Speaker’s decisions in respect of both witnesses were made after careful and considered assessment of the Committee’s requests.”
Parliament said these are not decisions that can be taken arbitrarily.
“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,” Parliament said.
“On the information placed before the Speaker, that legal threshold has not been demonstrated.
“Proceeding with a summons in these circumstances could materially weaken Parliament’s position should the matter be challenged in court.”
Parliament revealed that the Speaker has requested the Committee to properly engage with the reasons advanced by both witnesses and demonstrate, through its minutes and formal resolutions, how those concerns were considered and addressed.
In the case of O’Sullivan, this includes showing that:
- His application to appear virtually was formally tabled;
- Members considered his reasons, including his location abroad and security concerns;
- The Committee applied its mind to whether these constituted exceptional circumstances or sufficient cause;
- Alternatives proposed by the witness, including testifying virtually or from a South African embassy, were considered; and
- A reasoned and legally justifiable decision was reached and properly recorded.
In the case of Mogotsi, the Speaker similarly requires evidence that:
- His security concerns were formally tabled and considered.
- The nature and credibility of the risks he raised were assessed;
- The reasonableness of proposed security measures was evaluated;
- Any threat or risk assessment was considered; and
- A reasoned conclusion, supported by the record, was reached as to why his concerns did not justify accommodation.
