CAPE TOWN, Thursday 3 September 2026 — Witness Sarah-Jane Trent has accused members and officials of Parliament’s inquiry into alleged criminal infiltration of the justice system of unlawfully disclosing her personal and medical information, with the dispute now involving a police complaint and demands for an independent investigation.
Trent, a former associate of private investigator Paul O’Sullivan, made the allegations in correspondence considered by Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating allegations originally raised by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Eyewitness News reported on Thursday that Trent said she had opened a police complaint over the alleged disclosure.
Committee secretary Vhonani Ramaano told MPs that Trent alleged personal and medical information from her statement had circulated on social media and a website without her consent.
According to Ramaano’s account of the correspondence, Trent argued that the disclosure could result in criminal liability and indicated that she intended to pursue criminal charges.
The allegations have not been established as findings of wrongdoing by any MP or parliamentary official.
The committee has rejected the proposition that its members should surrender their electronic devices for an investigation into how the material was distributed.
Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane said the committee could not accept demands that effectively allowed a witness to dictate the terms under which Parliament should investigate the matter.
The dispute had already reached National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza before Thursday’s development.
SABC News reported on Wednesday that Trent had complained to Didiza in July and challenged the Speaker’s decision to refer the complaint back to the same ad hoc committee.
Trent argued that the committee could not investigate allegations concerning its own members and staff because doing so would conflict with the principle that a person should not adjudicate a matter in which they are directly implicated.
She asked for the matter to be referred to another parliamentary committee or an independent body and for Parliament to refer the alleged disclosure to SAPS.
The emergence of a police complaint materially escalates what had previously been an internal parliamentary dispute about the handling of evidence and witness information.
Parliament has not announced findings that any individual MP or employee leaked Trent’s information.
The disagreement comes as the ad hoc committee continues work on its draft final report into allegations of corruption, criminal infiltration and political interference in the criminal justice system.
Parliament confirmed on Thursday that the committee would meet again to continue considering the draft.
Trent testified before the inquiry in March alongside O’Sullivan.
Parliament’s official notice for their appearance identified both as witnesses in the committee’s investigation into allegations made by Mkhwanazi.
During her evidence, MPs questioned Trent about the role played by private investigators in investigations conducted by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate and her dealings with former IPID head Robert McBride.
Trent denied that she or O’Sullivan had infiltrated IPID and said assistance they provided involved research rather than the exercise of official investigative powers.
She subsequently asked Parliament to strike her oral evidence from the record, saying her medical condition had affected her ability to participate properly in questioning.
The committee rejected that request, with Parliament’s legal advisers taking the view that only a court could compel the committee to disregard evidence already placed before it.
The latest dispute therefore adds another procedural and legal issue to an inquiry that has spent months investigating allegations involving senior police officials, Crime Intelligence, IPID, prosecutors and private actors.
It does not determine the merits of Trent’s earlier evidence or allegations made against her during the inquiry.
Further clarity will depend on how Didiza responds to Trent’s request for an independent parliamentary process, whether SAPS formally investigates the alleged disclosure and whether investigators can establish how the information entered the public domain.
The committee, meanwhile, is continuing with its draft report, meaning the privacy dispute is now unfolding alongside the final stages of its parliamentary work.
