By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has expressed concern with issuing a subpoena for two witnesses to appear before Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating corruption within the criminal justice.
Didiza says she’s not been provided sufficient evidence that the committee has properly considered and addressed the security concerns raised by forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan and police fixer Brown Mogotsi, who have both refused to come to Parliament in person.
The committee had sought to compel both men to appear physically for testimony. The two had asked to testify virtually, citing serious security concerns.
The committee rejected these requests and resolved to write to the speaker to invoke subpoena powers, which would mandate their in-person attendance. However, such a summons can only be issued with the speaker’s formal concurrence.
O’Sullivan, who is currently overseas, cited credible death threats as the reason for his inability to travel. Mogotsi asked parliament to fund his personal security detail as a condition if he had to appear in person.
Both O’Sullivan and Mogotsi have been frequently mentioned by previous witnesses.
In a letter to the committee, Didiza noted she was informed of the security issues raised by both individuals. She argued that the committee failed to provide proof that it had meaningfully engaged with these concerns, she was reluctant to grant the subpoenas.
“From the records available, Mogotsi has stated he will continue to co-operate, provided the committee accords him personal protection,” Didiza said. “I am unable to rebut this claim in the absence of proof that a formal threat and risk assessment was actually conducted.”
Regarding O’Sullivan, Didiza warned that denying an application for virtual testimony without a sound reason could lead to legal trouble.
“I am advised that his application to appear virtually cannot be withheld unreasonably, as doing so constitutes a reviewable ground under the principle of legality.”
The committee has resolved that legal advisors respond to both O’Sullivan and Mogotsi’s security concerns—informing them of the measures Parliament is able to provide for them to appear in person—and will again insist on the Speaker to summons them.
The committee was also briefed on its tight timeline to conclude public participation, hear remaining witnesses and finalise its report.
Presenting the draft programme, committee secretary Vhonani Ramaano told the committee that three key matters remained outstanding: the conclusion of the public participation process, final engagements with witnesses, and the committee’s deliberation and adoption of its report.
He said the committee was expected to finalise and adopt its report on or before February 21 2026.
Ramaano said that four witnesses were scheduled to appear on Tuesday, noting that two of them had formally requested anonymity.
Former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane is expected to continue his testimony on 4 and 5 February, while Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Diane Kohler-Barnard and National Coloured Congress (NCC) leader Faidel Adams are scheduled to appear on 11 February.
Ramaano indicated that Mogotsi, O’Sullivan and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi were the only remaining witnesses without confirmed dates.
Several MPs expressed concern that individuals repeatedly named during testimony have yet to appear before the inquiry.
uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party MP David Skosana said crime intelligence senior official Feroz Khan should be called to testify, noting that his name had surfaced during multiple submissions. Khan heads the Counter-Intelligence and Security Intelligence division.
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema said suspended deputy national police commissioner Francinah Vuma should also be summoned.
MK party MP Vusi Shongwe added that ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula and President Cyril Ramaphosa had been implicated.
“There’s this list of names that keeps on disappearing, and I don’t know how, “Shongwe said.
Monday’s meeting also saw the committee debate whether Ramaphosa should appear before the committee or if he should submit a written affidavit.
Committee chairperson, Soviet Lekganyane said: “We will request the legal team to go and compile that list of questions, and then also request (for) the parties to forward the questions they have to the legal team.”
“The procedure may be that before the questions are sent out, the legal team will have to circulate them with their committee, to see what is being asked, and if the committee is satisfied that the questions (asked) represent what it desires to be raised with the president,” Lekganyane said.
“In the event a response comes, and as (Ashley) Sauls has suggested, the committee is not happy with the responses that would have been given, then the committee reserves the right to decide on any further action.”
The committee’s schedule this week will also include Samuel Ramalepe and two other SAPS officers on Wednesday, followed by the return of Phahlane, who will answer questions from the MPs on Wednesday and Thursday.