Paul O’Sullivan’s version of why he left the Airports Company simply does not fly.
Here is why …
On 10 February 2026, Paul O ‘Sullivan testified in Parliament at the Mkhwanazi Inquiry ad hoc committee. He maintained that he was unable to retain his R700,000 per annum position as Group Executive: Security at the Bedfordview Head Office of the Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA) due to the fact that he held dual nationality: United Kingdom and South Africa.
There could be an element of truth to this as we’ve seen this past week that John Steenhuisen’s former chief of staff, Roman Cabanac, had his contract terminated in June 2025 on account of the fact that he could not obtain security clearance due to his dual French South African citizenship.
Here is the exchange between Advocate Bongiwe Mkhize and Paul O’Sullivan in February 2026 at the Parliamentary ad hoc committee investigating allegations made in a July 2025 press conference by Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi:
Adv Mkhize: We are at paragraph 33 of your statement. You say that subsequently your contract was terminated from ACSA. What was the reason for the termination of your contract?
Mr Paul O’Sullivan: Because Jackie Selebi had intimated, well, he had gone to National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee (NICOC), I do not know how you say it, and they had changed the rules, and anybody who sat on the National Aviation Security Committee would have to have a security clearance top secret. And I would not be able to get such a security clearance because I had dual nationalities.
So, I could no longer sit on the National Aviation Security Committee, and as a result of no longer being able to sit on the National Aviation Security Committee, and as a result of the representations that Mr Selebi made to the new CEO of ACSA, a decision was taken, not by the chairman. The chairman tried to stop the decision from being taken, but he was now non-executive because we had a CEO now. A decision was taken to give me three months’ notice and terminate my position.
Adv Mkhize: So, you were terminated, your contract was terminated, because you did not have security clearance.
Mr Paul O’Sullivan: Yes, and because Jackie Selebi had had secret meetings with the new CEO and agreed, they looked at my contract. She got a lawyer involved, and the lawyer advised her that there is a clause in his contract that says you can give him three months’ notice, and that is what happened.
Adv Mkhize: But the reason was due to you not having top security, to not having security clearance.
Mr Paul O’Sullivan: Correct.
See: Mkhwanazi Inquiry: Mr Paul O’Sullivan (Day 1)
The Truth About Forensics for Justice was leaked a ninety-five page dossier of the entire ACSA employment file of Paul O’Sullivan. Nowhere in this dossier can the phrase “security clearance” be found, either as a condition of appointment or as a reason for termination.
Misogyny manifest
In fact, what strongly appears from his employment file is that he does not have a good track record in his dealings with women.
On 31 January 2003, ACSA CEO Monhla Hlahla addressed a letter to O’Sullivan titled “Notice of Termination of Services” in which she wrote:
I refer to my letter dated 22 January 2003, as well as the facilitation meeting held on 28# January 2003, with Ruth Edmonds wherein you were represented by your attorney Mr Darryl Zulberg. 1 have carefully considered the recommendation of Ruth Edmonds.
I regret to advise that despite numerous attempts to correct your conduct, and attitude towards your work your colleagues as well as myself, these attempts have failed to produce any positive results. As discussed with you, your proposed alternative to the termination of your services, i.e. that you report to Mr Carmine Bassetti instead of myself is not acceptable in that it will tend to exacerbate and not remedy a situation in which you appear incapable of accepting my authority. Furthermore, it is not designed to remedy your propensity to conduct yourself in an unprofessional and improper manner.
The company can no longer be obliged to continue an employment relationship in circumstances in which your conduct has rendered a continuing relationship intolerable, despite repeated attempts by the company to remedy and rectify the relationship. The record of the counselling sessions makes it clear that there has been a history of incompatibility, hostility and incapacity in which you have displayed an inability or unwillingness to correct your attitude and conduct towards myself in particular and the company in general. In addition, your work performance is inadequate in that you are unable or unwilling to consistently perform according to the standards required of you.
Through counselling, you have repeatedly been advised of the specifics relating to your attitude and conduct as well as your poor work performance. You were given the opportunity on each occasion of addressing and offering solutions. Despite having had a period of several months to correct your attitude conduct and performance, you have repeatedly displayed that you are incapable of, or unwilling to, regulate your conduct. This unwillingness or incapacity manifests itself in an inappropriate display of aggression and rudeness which serve to embarrass me, and the company and undermines my authority.
Sexual harassment
In a letter addressed to O’Sullivan a year before, 23 January 2002, Ms Hlahla wrote:
This letter serves to confirm the meeting held at ACSA head office on 18 January 2002 at 9:30:
The purpose of the meeting was to deal, in the first instance, with our concerns at the circumstances you presently face regarding a course of threats and related action. The actions against you are apparently a consequence of increased focus, during your tenure, on Airport Security and related matters.
We confirm that we have proposed that you give consideration to taking “sabbatical” leave for a six-week period, until things settle down. Such leave will be on full pay and with full benefits. In this respect, we also suggested that you may wish to use this opportunity to have your back operation.
Independently of the above we also raised with you the Company’s concerns with respect to one instance of alleged sexual harassment. This allegation was raised with the Company and is presently being investigated. We also raised and discussed your use of a polygraph during a recent investigation at Durban Airport, and the need for such action to follow proper procedure.
These issues are serious but are viewed as matters entirely separate from the circumstances you presently face with regard to the threatening conduct. We are continuing with our own investigations into these matters, but as indicated to you in our meeting, we felt it appropriate that allegations of this nature once raised must be addressed and investigated.
Gender Based Violence
On 11 February 2026, at the ad hoc committee, the following exchange took place between the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) Commander-in-Chief, Julius Malema, and O’Sullivan:
Mr Malema: Have you ever been found guilty of a GBV?
Mr O’Sullivan: What is GBV?
Mr Malema: Gender-based violence.
Mr O’Sullivan: Yes, in 1999 I paid a R500 admission of guilt fine for an alleged assault. In retrospect, I probably should not have paid the fine, but my lawyer at the time advised me that either there would be a trial or I could just pay the fine and it would not be a criminal record. Unfortunately, I paid the fine. It was made a criminal record. And then it was subsequently, what do they call it, expunged from the record.
Mr Malema: Do you still have your firearm licence?
Mr O’Sullivan: Yes, I do.
Mr Malema: Is it not the requirement that when you are found guilty of such a thing, they should withdraw your firearm licence?
Mr O’Sullivan: So there was not a trial and I was not found guilty. I just paid an admission of guilt fine. It is like if you are driving at 150 kilometres an hour and the speed limit is 120, you get a ticket in the post and you can either go to court and challenge it and then you get convicted and then it will be on your record or you pay an admission of guilt fine and then it does not appear on your record, although that is now changing, because I think with the new Act, even if you pay an admission of guilt fine now, it becomes part of your record. But at that time, it was not the case.
Mr Malema: Have you ever faced any allegations of sexual misconduct?
Mr O’Sullivan: No.
See: Mkhwanazi Inquiry: Mr Paul O’Sullivan (Day 2)
The self-professed crime buster alleges that he did not know what GBV was, notwithstanding the fact that he was convicted of it, and of three ancillary criminal charges.
Sakina Kamwendo
In late October 2022 the EFF issued a statement In which it deprecated the way in which O’Sullivan had treated SABC anchor Sakina Kamwendo in a live interview earlier that month:
“During the interview, the questionable O’Sullivan whose reported to be part of the Phala Phala crimes cover-up, used bullying and intimidatory language and racist attitude to say to Sakina Kamwendo “Who do you think you are talking to?”.
The bullying and intimidatory approach of O’Sullivan is part of his overall entitlement and racist arrogant attitude that makes him believe he is above the law, above accountability and above Law enforcement institutions. For the longest time, Paul O’Sullivan has been acting as if he is above the law and everyone should bow down to him.”
View the relevant excerpt of the interview here on YouTube:
Cornelia van der Merwe
Mrs van der Merwe in 2016 laid Charges against O’Sullivan for kidnapping her from the offices of Ronald Bobroff & Partners Incorporated where she was employed as a candidate attorney.
O’Sullivan was arraigned in the Randburg Regional Court, Gauteng. O’Sullivan testified in chief – in other words, when he had time to think clearly and was not under the pressure and stress of cross-examination:
“… I am very happy married, and I have five female children I have never abused my wife or children it is not that way I carry on. And I explained that I have got female directors in the company I have not abused any of them …”
I seems that O’Sullivan has a really short memory, and ought to be reminded of what was said in an affidavits contained in the docket that led to his conviction and sentence to a fine of R1,500.00 – not R500.00 as testified to by him under oath in parliament:
Odette O’Sullivan: On the 11 August 1999 at 23:15 I was visiting a friend by the name of Gerhard Smit, at number 6 Adriaan Crescent, Malanshof, when my husband, Paul O’Sullivan, of 2 Melda Road, Ruiterhof, Randburg, (whom I have a court interdict against him) arrived. He shouted at me and started hitting me on my head, ears and mouth. He (Paul O’Sullivan) threw me on the ground. He proceeded to pull out his firearm and I jumped and then he started hitting me. He also hit my friend’s mother. Later he phoned at number 6 Adriaan Crescent and said that he was going to kill my mother and my friend and he said he is going to take my pilot’s licence away.
Gerhard Smit: “Paul O’Sullivan then said to me, “AND YOU!” Paul O’Sullivan threw a punch at me which I managed to stop. After he tried to punch me, he then again hit Odette, who at that point in time was standing behind me and then he tried to punch her again, I managed to push him away from her. After I pushed away he yet again walked to Odette and then punched her with his first on her mouth. Odette, and my mother who was standing behind her at that point in time, both fell to the ground, whereupon Paul O’Sullivan proceed to kick her (Odette) as she lay on the ground and slapping her on her head, while simultaneously uttering, “fucking slut”. Paul O’Sullivan then walked away but turned around again and place his hand on his gun, at which point Odette jumped in front of me.”
See: Paul O’Sullivan: The Face of a Wife-Beater and Liar
Antoinette Slabbert
Veteran journalist Antoinette Slabbbert covering the O’Sullivan kidnapping trial in Randburg, doing her job as a journalist, incurred O’Sullivan’s ire when she was filming him inside the courtroom on 8 September 2017 during an adjournment.
View the video of her and O’Sullivan on YouTube
Sarah-Jane Trent
Ms. Trent also appeared before the ad hoc committee. uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party member, Davis Soksana, MP, had the following exchange with Ms. Trent concerning her tenure as a director of O’Sullivan’s enterprises:
Mr Skosana: My last one. Do you have regrets of working with Mr Paul O’Sullivan in other matters?
Ms Trent: I mean, I do not have any regrets of the matters we have worked on.
Mr Skosana: So are you saying that you can repeat what you’ve been doing without any doubt? Because for me, I am a bit ambivalent with you.
Ms Trent: I have a completely different way of doing my work.
Mr Skosana: No, no, but my question is, if you have been given another chance, will you do the same thing which you were doing over years with Mr O’Sullivan?
Ms Trent: No.
Mr Skosana: So you have some regrets?
Ms Trent: That is just too general a question. Let me first understand what you are asking before I answer.
Mr Skosana: No, no, I was asking you that if you have to repeat what you have done in the past few years you work with Mr O’Sullivan, will you still do the same thing?
Ms Trent: Everything?
Mr Skosana: Yes.
Ms Trent: I do not know if I can answer that.
Mr Skosana: Intimidating people and threatening people and extorting people as well. So you will never do that again?
Ms Trent: I did not send threatening emails.
Mr Skosana: No, no, it is him. Remember, it is your company as well.
Ms Trent: No, you are right. I do not agree that is the way to speak.
Mr Skosana: You will never repeat it again?
Ms Trent: Never.
Mr Skosana: Thank you.
The Child of a Lesser God.
African National Congress (ANC) member on the ad hoc committee, Xola Nqola, sensing Ms Trent’s predicament, had the following exchange with her:
Mr Nqola: Do you respect the South African judiciary?
Ms Trent: Yes.
Mr Nqola: So how could you say a magistrate has issued a fraudulent warrant of arrest? And then when we are asking about the reasons, you do not blame the magistrate. You blame some other people. I mean, you are supposed to note the weaknesses you are talking about, but still there is a warrant of arrest from a magistrate.
Ms Trent: If I am not mistaken, the magistrate makes the decision on what is presented by the prosecutor.
Mr Nqola: I am still not getting any response. Do you know the concept called vicarious liability?
Ms Trent: I do.
Mr Nqola: You say you were under unlawful arrest.
Ms Trent: Yes.
Mr Nqola: Do you understand that in terms of the principle of vicarious liability, you should have sued the minister for unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest or whatever you want to call it. Did you do that?
Ms Trent: I did not.
Mr Nqola: Why did you not do it?
Ms Trent: Well, firstly, I could not afford it. Secondly, I did not have a lawyer. And when Paul sued the state, he said that instead of me, because I probably will not get a lot, that I could have a percentage of what he gets.
Mr Nqola: Still, you are not giving me an answer. You are a lawyer. You are supposed to know that if you are subjected to unlawful arrest or malicious prosecution, you can sue the minister.
Ms Trent: Yes, I do know that, but you have to have money for the lawyer.
Mr Nqola: It does not make sense, but let us pass it.
Ms Trent: No, I could not afford a lawyer, otherwise I would have.
Mr Nqola: But Mr O’Sullivan paid more than R200 000 for McBride’s lawyers.
Ms Trent: Yeah, not mine.
Mr Nqola: So you are a child of a lesser god?
O’Sullivan was willing to pay R200,000 for McBride’s lawyers and an undisclosed amount for his own lawyers but not for Trent’s lawyers. As a sop, he offered to share whatever he got in damages from the minister with Trent. O’Sullivan is a contradiction: can misogyny and chivalry be found in the same person at the same time?
Sibonelo Nomvalo, MP, of the MK party had the following exchange with Trent:
Mr Nomvalo: Good evening, Ma’am.
Ms Trent: Good evening, Hon Nomvalo.
Mr Nomvalo: I want to start by appealing to your conscience. When I look at your profile here, and your educational background, I can safely say that you have worked hard to become who you are today. You are saying here you obtained a Certificate in Marketing Management. You obtained the Bachelor of Laws. You got admitted as an attorney of the High Court. You became a certified fraud examiner, and so on and so forth. And then, in my view, you started to experience problems when you met a man called Paul O’Sullivan. Are you proud for having worked with Paul O’Sullivan?
Ms Trent: That is a difficult question. What I will answer is that I learned a lot. I experienced a lot. Some of which was a bit traumatic.
Mr Nomvalo: Leave the experiences, Ma’am. Let me contextualise my question. The reason why I am asking, there’s evidence before this Committee which shows that there is widespread discontent against Paul O’Sullivan. Many people are bringing different complaints about him, and he has [destroyed], allegedly, many careers. Wrongfully so. If that is not enough, he even threatened Members of Parliament. He threatened a witness which was seated where you are sitting currently. He even threatened a Member of Parliament last week, I believe that, as a patriotic South African, you do not endorse such behaviour. Now, the question is, are you still proud of having worked with such a man?
Ms Trent: I no longer tell people that I used to work with him.
Mr Nomvalo: No, you are not responding to my question. Leave alone his questionable history and desire to be a South African citizen, because that is where I am going as well. I am going to ask you a question, if you made enough research about him before you joined his company, and about his intentions for coming into our country. For now, let us deal with this one. Are you still proud, having learned all these allegations and having learned all the evidence that has been accused before this Committee against him, for having worked with him?
Ms Trent: I think it would be better to deal with the allegations, because I have not ever witnessed him committing an offence.
Mr Nomvalo: Okay, let me ask you this question, because seemingly I am not going to get an answer on this one. Do you associate yourself with the wrongdoings orchestrated by Paul O’Sullivan? Ma’am, here I am talking about the person who has not denied some of the allegations I have explained to you. He came to this Committee. We asked him about threatening a witness who was there, Mr Nkabinde. He has not denied, he did not even become evasive. He took ownership of all these things that I have spoken about. Now, I am asking you, do you still associate yourself with that character?
Ms Trent: No.
Mr Nomvalo: Are you proud of having worked with him? After he has conceded to all these things, are you still proud?
Ms Trent: I am sad.
Mr Nomvalo: Were you born here in South Africa?
Ms Trent nodded her head in the affirmative.
Mr Nomvalo: And I believe you love this country. I believe you are protective of your reputation and of your character. And the manner in which you have worked for your profile, in terms of your educational background, you would not allow your character to be easily destroyed by another person.
Ms Trent: No.
Mr Nomvalo: Now, if I give you an opportunity here to clean your name and the only way you can clean your name is by telling nothing but the truth, I am telling you, South Africa will regain confidence in you. We have given some witnesses that opportunity here. And some espoused our advice. And they received a standing ovation. If I am giving you an opportunity here to clean your name, would you take advantage of that?
Ms Trent: I do not know. I will tell [you] whatever you need. Like I said, I have never witnessed him committing an offence, but I will take any opportunity. Sorry, can you ask that question again?
Mr Nomvalo: No, no, no. The question is too long, Ma’am. There are many questions I have for you. Would you take an opportunity of cleaning your name if I give that opportunity to you? Because your name is currently tainted through your association with Mr Paul O’Sullivan. And the only instrument you can use to cleanse your name is by telling nothing but the truth.
Ms Trent: Correct.
Mr Nomvalo: Would you take that opportunity?
Ms Trent: Yes, I would.
Mr Nomvalo: Would you take advantage of it?
Ms Trent: Yes.
See: Mkhwanazi Inquiry: Mr Paul O’Sullivan and Ms Sarah-Jane Trent
See: Sarah-Jane Trent moves to scrap her ad hoc testimony, claims it was against her will
See: ‘We won’t be your playground’: Parliament shuts down Sarah-Jane Trent’s submissions
Dineo Mokwele
According to evidence from the Madlanga Commission, O’Sullivan emailed Mokwele and gave her fourteen days to resign, failing which he would expose information about her.
The email allegedly copied:
- IDAC head Andrea Johnson;
- a senior police general; and
- Police Minister Mchunu.
O’Sullivan’s misogyny is made plain. How can a twenty-nine year old African female, who is far brighter than him, far more educated than him and far more erudite than he is, be appointed a brigadier in the Saps – while he remains nothing more than an unsophisticated grifter?
See What is the story concerning Brigadier Dineo Mokwele?
The seven women who at best despise Paul O’Sullivan
It seems from O’Sullivan’s ACSA employment file that its former CEO, Monhla Hlahla, does not have the time of day for him. Nor does his former wife and her mother, nor does Sakina Kamwendo, and neither does Sarah-Jane Trent nor Antoinette Slabbert, nor Dineo Mokwele most certainly does not have the time of day for this misogynist.
O’Sullivan can be thankful that he does not live in Cape Town. Some women residents of Salt River are known to hunt down errant men and bitch slap them. Here’s wishing the Women of South Africa a Happy Women’s Day. Steer clear of Paul O’Sullivan and his ilk.
ACSA Employment File – Paul O’Sullivan – Part One
ACSA Employment File – Paul O’Sullivan – Part Two
ACSA Employment File – Paul O’Sullivan – Part Three
ACSA Employment File – Paul O’Sullivan – Part Four
ACSA Employment File – Paul O’Sullivan – Part Five
ACSA Employment File – Paul O’Sullivan – Part Six
