Sparks fly as Malema uses parliamentary privilege to attack O'Sullivan, who retaliated strongly

Key topics:Malema grilled O'Sullivan over alleged Hawks payments and reimbursements.Questions targeted O'Sullivan's qualifications and senior ACSA role.Accusations flew on wealth sources, corruption, and political motives..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..By BizNews Reporter.In a tense, heated exchange before Parliament, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema grilled forensic investigator Paul O'Sullivan over allegations that O'Sullivan had received payments from the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks. The interaction, characterised by sharp accusations and mutual distrust, offered a rare glimpse into the confrontational relationship between one of South Africa's most prominent political figures and the veteran investigator known for tackling high-profile corruption.The confrontation centred on payments O'Sullivan admitted to receiving from the DPCI. Malema, seized on this admission, questioned the legitimacy of these transactions, suggesting they were "rewards" for information rather than reimbursements for expenses as O'Sullivan claimed. "You have admitted to having received money from DSO, right?" Malema pressed, setting the tone for the interrogation.O'Sullivan confirmed receiving funds but disputed the amounts and the nature of the payments cited in documents presented to him. He acknowledged receiving approximately R100,000, which he described as reimbursement for expenses incurred during investigations into complex criminal syndicates, specifically "Project Bad Guys" and "Project Coffee," noting that they involved international drug smuggling with global tentacles..Read more:.RIGHT OF REPLY: Miller v Moti and O'Sullivan - Round number three.....However, Malema was relentless, challenging O'Sullivan's narrative. He pointed to documents that allegedly referenced payments significantly higher than the R100,000 O'Sullivan recalled, with one figure potentially reaching R1 million, though this was hotly contested by O'Sullivan who claimed he had never seen the document in question. "The document says 100,000... I've never seen the document before," O'Sullivan retorted, attempting to distance himself from figures he deemed inaccurate or fabricated.The exchange quickly pivoted to O'Sullivan's professional qualifications, a line of questioning Malema used to seemingly undermine O'Sullivan's credibility. Malema probed O'Sullivan's academic background, asking pointedly about his "O Levels" and "A Levels" and their South African equivalents. "Did you complete O-level or A-level?" Malema asked, to which O'Sullivan confirmed he held both.The tension escalated when Malema questioned O'Sullivan's eligibility for the senior positions he had held, specifically the title of "Group Executive Aviation Security" at the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA). Malema argued that O'Sullivan lacked the necessary tertiary qualifications for such a high-ranking post, suggesting he had "infiltrated the system.""You occupied a senior position without qualifying because you had infiltrated the system," Malema accused. He demanded to know how O'Sullivan secured the role without a verified degree, implying that O'Sullivan had misrepresented his credentials.O'Sullivan, visibly frustrated, defended his track record and experience, stating, "I am not going to submit myself to providing information which I believe you're not entitled to." He insisted that his appointment was based on his extensive experience and results, rather than a specific academic certificate, and accused Malema of trying to "impugn my character."The interrogation took a personal turn when Malema questioned the source of O'Sullivan's wealth, specifically funds used for property investments. Malema insinuated that O'Sullivan's capital might have questionable origins, linked to his time in military intelligence or other opaque sources. "Where did you get the money to invest in the property investment?" Malema asked, rejecting O'Sullivan's explanation of profitable property flipping as "pure speculation."O'Sullivan fired back, accusing Malema and members of the committee of using the hearing to deflect from their own alleged criminal conduct. "You and certain other members of this committee are looking for ways of covering up the criminal conduct... of crime intelligence officials and the abuse of the slush fund," O'Sullivan charged. He framed the questioning as a retaliatory tactic by politicians eager to silence an investigator who has been a thorn in the side of corrupt officials.This parliamentary clash highlights the deep-seated animosity between O'Sullivan and the EFF leadership. It underscores the broader political battles being fought over accountability and the integrity of South Africa's law enforcement agencies. For observers, it was a stark reminder of how personal and vicious the fight against corruption has become, with accusers and investigators alike facing scrutiny in the public domain..Read more:.Isaac Mogotsi: Trump vs Malema, 'White genocide' myth and a diplomatic showdown.As the dust settles on this parliamentary showdown, the question remains: was this a legitimate exercise in oversight, or a political hit job designed to discredit a potent adversary? The public, much like the committee members, is left to sift through the accusations and counter-accusations to find the truth.

Sparks fly as Malema uses parliamentary privilege to attack O'Sullivan, who retaliated strongly

Key topics:

Related Stories