McBride grilled over PI’s involvement in Ipid probe

THE former head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Robert McBride, faced tough questions about the questionable involvement of private investigator Paul O’Sullivan in Ipid’s investigation into former acting police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane.

McBride took the stand yesterday and faced cross-examination from advocate Dawie Joubert, who represented North West head of crime intelligence Pharas Ncube and former SAPS North West deputy commissioner Jan Mabula.

McBride had implicated the two men when he testified at the inquiry last year and alleged the two were involved in a parallel investigation which was set up to counter Ipid’s probe into Phahlane.

Ipid had acted on a tip-off from O’Sullivan, who alleged Phahlane had an allegedly corrupt relationship with a SAPS service provider.

Ipid investigators acted on the evidence provided and instituted a raid at Phahlane’s home in January 2017.

McBride believes Phahlane abused his powers when he allegedly recruited Mabula and Ncube to investigate an alleged security breach at his home.

Mabula and Ncube investigated the matter and a case was later opened against O’Sullivan and his assistant, Sarah-Jane Trent, and two Ipid officials who had conducted the raid at Phahlane’s home.

McBride faced questions on what could be perceived as O’Sullivan’s questionable involvement in a police investigation.

O’Sullivan had accompanied the two Ipid officials when the raid was conducted at Phahlane’s home.

Joubert questioned McBride on why O’Sullivan was present when the raid took place, when his only position was that of a complainant.

“Indeed, complainants do assist in investigations sometimes and perhaps he (O’Sullivan) was more involved than others,” McBride said.

McBride said he could not answer to the reasoning and thinking of the two Ipid officials who had allowed O’Sullivan to become involved in the Phahlane case.

This response was followed by Joubert further urging McBride to analyse the legality of O’Sullivan’s involvement.

Joubert asked: “Maybe the investigators should have said they are in control of the process and that they (O’Sullivan and Trent) should listen to them and not appear to be in charge?”

McBride responded by saying the Ipid investigators had provided the commission with affidavits explaining O’Sullivan’s involvement.

“There have been instances when I had to intervene because they (O’Sullivan) provided assistance.

“They (investigators) give an explanation of how O’Sullivan and Trent came to be together in one car at the time. They explain the assumption that they were too involved,” McBride said.

Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo followed up the question with one of his own: “Do you accept their (O’Sullivan and Trent) involvement seemed more than normal?

“Chair, I would agree with you. But in this instance, the police themselves had gone to O’Sullivan and made statements themselves. And then O’Sullivan became a complainant.

“O’Sullivan assisted a lot and the key reason is more than the specific aspect of this case. If you want Ipid to be independent, then make sure Ipid has funding. Asking for help from the police defeats the point of its independence,” McBride said.

The former Ipid boss said his team later sought help from the Hawks, which resulted in Phahlane’s arrest.

When asked if he was still convinced that the SAPS investigation into a security breach at Phahlane’s house was suspicious, McBride said he had heard Mabula and Ncube’s versions but he was unconvinced of their testimonies that the investigation was justified.

The commission resumes on Tuesday.