ActionSA says it will open a criminal case against fraud examiner Paul O’Sullivan, accusing him of lying under oath before Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating alleged corruption, criminal infiltration and political interference within South Africa’s justice system.
This follows explosive claims by ActionSA MP Dereleen James, who alleged that O’Sullivan received R100 000 from Crime Intelligence’s secret service account – widely referred to as the “slush fund”.
O’Sullivan returned to the Good Hope Chamber in Cape Town on Wednesday for a second day of testimony before the committee.
Allegations against Paul O’Sullivan
He faces several accusations linked to his alleged conduct at the South African Police Service (Saps) and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid).
Among them are claims that he exerted undue influence at Ipid during Robert McBride’s tenure as executive director.
He is also accused of targeting former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane in a bid to have him removed from office.
ALSO READ: ‘Fiction created by Phahlane’: McBride denies Paul O’Sullivan controlled Ipid
Additionally, he allegedly sent threatening messages to Police Minister Senzo Mchunu’s chief of staff, Cedrick Nkabinde, during proceedings before the committee.
Outside Parliament, O’Sullivan is embroiled in a legal dispute with KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Mkhwanazi has filed a R5 million defamation lawsuit against O’Sullivan after the latter accused him of being a criminal following a 6 July 2025 press conference.
O’Sullivan has responded with a R10 million counter-application.
‘False narrative’
In his testimony, O’Sullivan rejected claims that he infiltrated Ipid.
“It is a blatant lie,” he said.
He told the committee that he does not even know who the current Ipid executive director is, adding that his last engagement with the police watchdog was in 2018 when he laid a complaint against Phahlane.
According to O’Sullivan, he opened a docket against Phahlane at the time, but Ipid declined to investigate because it was captured during the state capture period.
READ MORE: ‘My loyalty is to South Africa’: Paul O’Sullivan denies being foreign agent
When McBride was later reinstated, O’Sullivan said he brought Ipid “up to speed” on the matter.
He also dismissed suggestions that he and McBride worked together to remove Phahlane so that McBride could become national police commissioner.
“It is the false narrative of Phahlane and Nkabinde,” he said.
O’Sullivan further denied being involved in investigations into Phahlane.
Watch the ad hoc committee below:
Crime Intelligence slush fund under scrutiny
O’Sullivan later questioned Mkhwanazi’s evidence before both the parliamentary committee and the Madlanga commission, particularly regarding the management of informants in KZN.
He asserted that only Crime Intelligence is authorised to manage informants, with the slush fund specifically allocated for their payments.
“It’s a function of Crime Intelligence to manage informers and that is the purpose of the slush fund.”
According to O’Sullivan, Mkhwanazi lacks the required security clearance to oversee or manage informants.
READ MORE: Ramaphosa was ‘a very good student’, Paul O’Sullivan tells ad hoc committee
He further pointed out that Mkhwanazi had failed to clarify how the slush fund is administered in KZN or how payments to informants are handled.
“If the committee wants to get to the bottom of the root of all evil in the police, it needs to start with the slush fund because they can stop the wanton theft of millions of rand every year, which is stolen in secret and spent in secret, with zero accountability.
“In fact, the loose strings around the purse of the slush fund results in factional battles within the police because many senior police officials want to get their hands on these taxpayer funds,” O’Sullivan told MPs.
He added that the slush fund’s budget had ballooned from R91 million in the 2012/2013 financial year to R600 million currently.
Despite the increase, O’Sullivan contended that crime levels in South Africa had not declined but instead worsened.
Clash over R100 000 payment
Tensions escalated when James directly questioned O’Sullivan about whether he had ever received money from the slush fund, which he denied.
James then alleged that O’Sullivan had received R100 000 into his Nedbank account in connection with the investigation of former Czech organised crime figure Radovan Krejčíř.
She told the committee she had evidence, including proof of payment.
“Here is the cheque made out to you from the very root of all evil that you have [described]. You too have benefited from the manna of heaven,” James said.
O’Sullivan dismissed the claim.
“Not true,” he said.
James insisted that O’Sullivan had misled the committee.
“Today, I have brought receipts to prove to you that you have lied to this house under oath and because you have lied to this house under oath and we do have the evidence, as ActionSA, after this meeting, we will be opening and laying criminal charges against you,” she said.
‘Peddling lies’
O’Sullivan shot back, accusing the MP of “peddling lies”.
He maintained that the R100 000 payment originated from the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO), also known as the Scorpions, and not from Crime Intelligence.
“It’s not in 2007. It was in 2006,” he said, explaining that the payment was a reimbursement.
He said the funds were a refund for expenses he incurred at the request of the Scorpions.
James countered that he had only spent R22 500.
“It’s on the application form.”
O’Sullivan, however, argued that the amount reflected only part of his expenses, which included additional security measures for a witness who feared for his life.
“This is in connection with the Scorpions investigation carried out in respect of the late Jackie Selebi and they agreed to refund me the monies I spent, which also included the use of my aircraft.
“They chose to refund it in this format and in fact, the amount of money I spent was in excess of half a million rand, of which they contributed a R100 000,” he told the committee.
He emphasised that the money wasn’t paid from the Crime Intelligence’s slush fund.
“It was paid from the NPA [National Prosecuting Authority] account. So the honourable member is wrong when she says that I lied when I denied receiving monies from the slush fund.”
NOW READ: ‘Good Christian country’: Inside Paul O’Sullivan’s letter ‘pleading’ to move to SA during apartheid
About the Author
