Former IPID head Robert McBride has told Parliament that the sources of funding for forensic consultant Paul O’Sullivan have never been independently verified, conceding that he has relied largely on O’Sullivan’s own explanations about where his resources come from.
McBride made the remarks while testifying before an ad hoc parliamentary committee during a discussion on the role of non-governmental organisations and private individuals in South Africa’s criminal justice system, and the potential national security risks linked to unexamined funding.
During the sitting, McBride addressed his previous public praise of organisations such as the Helen Suzman Foundation, Freedom Under Law and the Ford Foundation, stating that he had no knowledge of who funds them.
“No, I don’t have a clue,” he said. He said his assessment of these organisations was based on his interactions with individuals working within them, whom he described as people of integrity.
“What I know is the people I know from there are people of integrity.”
McBride said he was not aware of any investigation or formal assessment into whether such organisations could be used as vehicles for political influence by their funders.
While acknowledging that some NGOs do engage in such practices, he said this was unlikely in the case of the organisations he had mentioned.
“But I’m sure there are NGOs that do that, but unlikely it’s that one.”
Mathys pointed out that McBride’s engagement appeared to be with the individuals operating within these organisations rather than those who provide the funding. McBride agreed, confirming that he had “no clue at all” who their funders were.
The discussion broadened to national security concerns, with Mathys asking whether McBride accepted that NGOs can pose risks both internationally and within South Africa.
McBride agreed, saying, “Indeed, some of them can, yes. And some of them do already.” He added that South Africa was not immune to such risks, stating, “No, certainly not. The game is on already.”
Mathys alson asked about O’Sullivan, and where he obtains the resources that allow him to assist officials and institutions in the criminal justice system.
McBride told the committee that O’Sullivan “does all sorts of businesses all over the world”, but acknowledged under questioning that this understanding was largely derived from O’Sullivan’s own accounts.
Although McBride said he had “looked into his background”, he conceded that he had not independently verified O’Sullivan’s claims.
He told the committee that O’Sullivan travelled extensively and had once said that he buys and sells property, but confirmed that he had not conducted any formal confirmation of these assertions. “
No, no, I haven’t checked,” McBride said, agreeing that O’Sullivan “may as well be getting money from anywhere”.
Mathys cautioned that even funding received in good faith could originate from questionable sources, a point McBride accepted.
She questioned whether, in the absence of any credible assessment or investigation into O’Sullivan’s substantial resources, McBride believed he had been protecting the country by allowing engagement and access to information from him.
McBride responded that O’Sullivan’s primary role was the provision of information relating to corruption, but acknowledged that questions around “where he gets it from and how he gets it” could warrant further scrutiny.
“Well, that might be worthwhile investigation,but corruption is good for the country,” he said.
He acknowledged the risk that anti-corruption efforts could be weaponised or pursued in a one-sided manner.
“I agree,” he said. McBride said that if it emerged that O’Sullivan was acting in such a way, consequences would follow.
“If I find out he is doing that, there’ll be in big trouble.”
He added that determining where O’Sullivan’s money comes from could be a starting point.
Politics
