ANALYSIS | O’Sullivan may face criminal case or court order for Parliament walkout

Paul O’Sullivan’s controversial walkout of the ad hoc committee has raised questions about Parliament’s power to issue subpoenas and the consequences of contempt. 

He was back before the committee investigating police corruption to continue his evidence.

However, the hearing ended abruptly when he walked out, claiming he was late for his flight.

RELATED: WATCH: Paul O'Sullivan walks out of Parly's ad hoc committee

Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi clarified that while O’Sullivan was not under subpoena, his sections still constitute contempt of Parliament, as he was appearing voluntarily and under oath.

He explained that Parliament is a constitutional institution exercising legal powers, and while the role players may be politicians, they are still performing a constitutional obligation, and their actions have consequences. 

“It’s a semantics debate because the point is that when he went in, he went in and took an oath that he would testify truthfully, but he will stay and complete his testimony. When he displays contemptuous conduct in front of Parliament, it is still contempt of Parliament because when you are there, you are under the authority of Parliament.

“I think Parliamentarians will probably look back on those moments and probably regret that they didn’t issue a subpoena because it would have made their job easier.”

Ngcukaitobi said the consequences for O’Sullivan’s actions include the possibility of a criminal case or a court order to compel his return to Parliament.

To listen to Ngcukaitobi in conversation with 702’s Bongani Bingwa, use the audio player below: