Senior state advocate Molatlhwa Michael Mashuga has told parliament’s ad hoc committee that the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) was compromised during investigations linked to former acting national police commissioner Lt-Gen Khomotso Phahlane.
He also alleged that private investigator Paul O’Sullivan and his former assistant, Sarah-Jane Trent, were embedded in the process.
Mashuga, who left the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in 2024, testified under oath that at a critical stage of the investigation Ipid’s independence was undermined because O’Sullivan and Trent were functioning as active participants in matters he had been assigned to prosecute.
“I will place evidence before this committee that the Ipid investigation at that stage was not independent because it was infiltrated and led by O’Sullivan and Sarah Jane Trent,” he told MPs.
He alleged that their involvement introduced bias into the inquiry and contributed to efforts to implicate Phahlane.
Phahlane was investigated for alleged systemic corruption, money-laundering and procurement irregularities, which led to his dismissal from the South African Police Service (SAPS) in 2020.
A specialised “Phahlane Task Team” was established to handle the matter. Mashuga told the committee that the team’s integrity was undermined by outside influence and that Ipid acted contrary to the independence and impartiality required under the Ipid Act.
Mashuga confirmed that in 2017 he instituted charges against O’Sullivan, Trent and then-Ipid officers Mandlakayise Mahlangu and Temane Binang. The charges included contravention of section 33 of the Ipid Act, conspiracy to commit that offence, fraud, extortion and attempted extortion. The matter was later struck off the roll after delays and has not been re-enrolled.
He told the committee that O’Sullivan and Trent presented themselves as Ipid investigators and obtained witness statements while official Ipid members did not intervene. He said this conduct eroded the statutory independence of the watchdog.
Mashuga further testified that data downloaded from Trent’s seized phone revealed detailed communications about operational aspects of the investigation, including exchanges about the execution of a search at Phahlane’s Pretoria residence.
He said some actions went beyond the scope of the authorised warrant and pointed to messages discussing the “success” of the operation as evidence of improper collaboration.
He also described sustained attacks on his professional reputation while he was prosecuting the case, including media interviews and commentary that he said were aimed at discrediting him.
In his affidavit, Mashuga set out the constitutional and statutory framework governing the NPA and Ipid. He cited section 179 of the constitution, which establishes the NPA as a single prosecuting authority, and section 32 of the NPA Act, which prohibits any person or organ of state from improperly interfering with prosecutorial functions. He also referred to section 206 of the constitution and section 2 of the Ipid Act, which require Ipid to conduct independent and impartial investigations into offences allegedly committed by SAPS members.
He argued that permitting O’Sullivan and Trent to lead investigative steps in the Phahlane matter was inconsistent with Ipid’s statutory mandate. He further referenced sections 25 and 33 of the Ipid Act, which address conflicts of interest and the unlawful disclosure of confidential information obtained during investigations.
Mashuga stated that the decision to charge was taken after considering the totality of the evidence, including witness statements and expert reports. He said that after receiving the docket in the Kameeldrift-related matter, his role was to determine whether there was evidence of an offence and whether further investigation was required. He guided the investigation led by Maj-Gen Nebo Jan Mabula, then deputy provincial commissioner for crime investigation and detection in the North West, which led to the arrest of O’Sullivan and the addition of Ipid officers as accused persons.
He also referred to provisions of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, the National Credit Act and section 86 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act in the context of alleged unlawful access to or disclosure of confidential information.
O’Sullivan has denied infiltrating Ipid or improperly influencing state investigations. In earlier testimony before the same ad hoc committee, he rejected the allegations as false and malicious.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.