Paul O’Sullivan Assistant Sarah-Jane Trent Breaks Down As She Struggles To Explain Role In IPID Investigations

Former assistant to private investigator Paul O’Sullivan, Sarah-Jane Trent, became emotional during a parliamentary inquiry after facing tough questions about the role of private organisations in assisting the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).

Trent struggled to explain the legal framework that would allow private entities to support the state watchdog during high-profile investigations, leading to a tense moment during Thursday’s hearing before the Ad Hoc Committee.

Less than an hour into her testimony, the questioning intensified as lawmakers demanded clarity on whether such cooperation was legally permitted under the IPID Act.

MPs Demand Answers on Private Role in IPID Investigations

The committee pressed Trent to identify the specific section of the IPID Act that would allow private organisations to become involved in sensitive investigations handled by the watchdog.

Unable to cite a clear provision, Trent faltered under questioning and became visibly emotional.

Her appearance followed testimony earlier in the day by O’Sullivan, whose private investigative network is being scrutinised over claims that it exerted influence within IPID during politically sensitive probes.

The parliamentary inquiry is examining whether external actors may have interfered with investigations intended to hold senior police officials accountable.

Phahlane Investigation at Centre of Committee Probe

The hearings were partly prompted by evidence from advocate Michael Mashuga, a former prosecutor with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Mashuga told MPs on Wednesday that IPID’s independence may have been compromised during investigations involving former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane.

Phahlane was dismissed from the police service in 2020 after being found guilty of dishonest conduct. He has consistently maintained that O’Sullivan had undue influence over investigations targeting him.

Against this backdrop, Trent’s testimony quickly turned into one of the most tense exchanges of the inquiry.

Trent Details How She Joined O’Sullivan’s Firm

During questioning, Trent explained how she first contacted O’Sullivan’s investigative firm in February 2015 while she was unemployed.

“I thought, ‘What do I have to lose?’ I was interested in investigations and sent my CV,” she said.

According to Trent, the firm initially had no available positions. She said she offered to help on a voluntary basis, carrying out research and administrative duties.

She maintained that she was not involved in strategic meetings or major investigations during the early period of her involvement.

Over time, however, her responsibilities grew significantly.

Trent later became a director at O’Sullivan’s firm as well as the anti-corruption organisation Forensics for Justice, roles she said she held for about six years.

The hearing grew more intense when evidence leader advocate Bongiwe Mkhize questioned Trent about the firm’s role in IPID’s investigation into Phahlane.

O’Sullivan had lodged a formal complaint against the senior police official in 2016, which led to the probe.

Trent told the committee that she conducted background research and later met with former IPID head Robert McBride and lead investigator Mandla Mahlangu.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Shibiri Slams Musa Khawula Claims At Madlanga Commission: “I Don’t Know Chommie!”

However, when MPs asked her to explain the legal basis for private investigators assisting IPID, she struggled to provide a clear answer.

Trent maintained that the organisation merely supported aspects of the investigation rather than directing it.

“We were not managing the investigation,” she said. “If I needed to run a search on something that came out of the investigation, IPID carried out the investigation. We just assisted with certain aspects.”

Her explanation did little to ease concerns among committee members, who repeatedly asked whether such collaboration was lawful.

The inquiry is set to continue as MPs attempt to determine whether private influence may have affected investigations meant to ensure accountability within the police service.