EFF moves to lay criminal charge after O’Sullivan’s dramatic parliamentary walkout

What started as a tense parliamentary hearing has now spilled onto the steps of a police station.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) says it will open a criminal case against forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan after his abrupt exit from a parliamentary inquiry this week.

In a media alert issued on Friday, the party invited journalists to witness the laying of charges at 08:30 at Cape Town Central Police Station, a move that signals the matter is no longer just a parliamentary squabble.

It’s becoming a legal fight.

The walkout that sparked outrage

O’Sullivan had been appearing before an ad hoc committee set up to examine allegations made by Lt-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.

But while still under oath, he walked out of the session without being excused by the chairperson. His testimony ended midstream.

Members of Parliament reacted swiftly. Some described the act as a direct challenge to Parliament’s authority. Others called for his arrest. The mood in the committee room reportedly shifted from procedural to confrontational within minutes.

The chairperson indicated at the time that Parliamentary Legal Services would be consulted on what steps to take next.

Now, the EFF is taking matters a step further.

Why the EFF says it’s criminal

According to the party, O’Sullivan’s conduct violates the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.

Under Section 17 of the Act, refusing to give evidence, failing to remain in attendance, or committing contempt of Parliament may constitute an offence. Section 27 outlines penalties that include a fine, imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.

The EFF argues that walking out while under oath and refusing to continue giving evidence meets that threshold.

By opening a case with the police, the party is shifting the dispute from Parliament’s internal disciplinary mechanisms into the criminal justice system, a significant escalation.

Parliament vs the police

It remains unclear whether the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, will initiate parallel contempt proceedings within Parliament itself.

The EFF has previously demanded that Parliament act decisively. But if law enforcement authorities proceed, the matter could take on a different character entirely, potentially moving into courtrooms rather than committee chambers.

This raises a broader constitutional question: where does parliamentary authority end, and where does criminal liability begin?

South Africa’s democratic framework gives Parliament strong powers to summon witnesses and demand accountability. But those powers are not often tested in such dramatic fashion.

Political theatre or constitutional principle?

Public reaction has been predictably divided.

On social media, some users argue that no individual should defy Parliament, particularly while under oath. Others see the escalating response as political theatre, suggesting the clash reflects deeper tensions between certain political parties and high-profile investigators.

The EFF, known for its combative parliamentary style, has framed the issue as one of institutional respect and legal compliance. Critics, meanwhile, question whether criminal charges are proportionate or politically motivated.

What is undeniable is that Parliament’s authority is central to the functioning of South Africa’s democracy. If witnesses can walk out without consequence, the oversight role of elected representatives could be weakened.

At the same time, the optics of arrest threats and criminal charges risk deepening political polarisation.

What happens next?

For now, the focus shifts to Cape Town Central Police Station, where the EFF plans to formally open its case.

Whether prosecutors decide to pursue charges will depend on legal interpretation and available evidence. Meanwhile, Parliament may still chart its own course through internal contempt procedures.

Either way, the incident has intensified an already charged inquiry.

And in a political climate where tensions often simmer just below the surface, one walkout has managed to ignite a full-blown confrontation over power, process and accountability.