Courts & Legal
EFF urges Didiza to charge O’Sullivan after Parliament walkout
A heated moment inside Parliament has now turned into a formal political demand.
The Economic Freedom Fighters has written to Speaker Thoko Didiza, urging her to lay a criminal charge of contempt of Parliament against forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan. The call follows his abrupt walkout from an ad hoc committee hearing this week, an incident that left Members of Parliament visibly angered.
The confrontation happened during proceedings of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to investigate allegations made by Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. O’Sullivan had been appearing before the committee when he left the meeting without being excused by the chairperson, effectively cutting short his testimony.
Inside the committee room, MPs reacted swiftly. Several described the departure as a direct challenge to Parliament’s authority. Some went as far as suggesting that law enforcement should be involved.
The letter that escalated matters
In a letter dated 26 February 2026, EFF National Chairperson and Parliamentary Chief Whip Nontando Nolutshungu formally asked Didiza to pursue criminal action.
The party relied on the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2014. In particular, it pointed to provisions that compel witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees to answer questions under oath. Section 16(2) requires individuals to respond to questions related to the subject of inquiry, even if those answers could be self-incriminating. Section 17(1)(c) provides that failing to answer fully and satisfactorily without sufficient cause is an offence, punishable by a fine or up to 12 months’ imprisonment, or both.
According to the EFF, O’Sullivan’s conduct went beyond simply refusing to answer questions. The party described it as contemptuous and called on Parliament to assert its authority. It further asked the Speaker to confirm when the complaint would be processed with the relevant authorities.
Parliament’s next move
Following the walkout, the committee chairperson indicated that Parliamentary Legal Services would be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action. Political parties have since debated whether the incident amounts to a prosecutable offence under parliamentary law.
In South Africa’s often combative political climate, tensions between oversight bodies and individuals called to account are not new. However, open defiance within a committee setting is rare and symbolically charged. Parliamentary committees form a crucial part of democratic oversight, and their authority depends on compliance with established rules.
This latest clash now places the spotlight squarely on Didiza. As Speaker and presiding officer of the National Assembly, she holds a key role in safeguarding Parliament’s institutional authority.
Why this matters beyond the committee room
The incident has amplified political tensions around the ad hoc committee’s work. It also raises broader questions about accountability, the limits of witness conduct, and how far Parliament is prepared to go to defend its processes.
On social media, reaction has been divided. Some view the walkout as an act of defiance against what they perceive as political theatre. Others argue that allowing such conduct to go unpunished would weaken Parliament’s standing.
What happens next could set an important precedent. If a criminal contempt charge is pursued, it would reinforce the legal obligations placed on those summoned before parliamentary structures. If not, critics may argue that Parliament’s authority has been tested and found wanting.
For now, the matter rests with the Speaker, and the country is watching closely.
Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikT
For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com
Source: IOL
Featured Image: Mercury
