“I’ll Seek Court Action To Block The Appointment Of Mkhwanazi As National Hawks Head” O’Sullivam Say

A proposed appointment to lead South Africa’s Hawks could face a court fight before it is even finalised.

Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan, through Forensics for Justice, has reportedly warned acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia that the process may be challenged unless it is paused or opened to greater public scrutiny. The warning puts pressure on a decision already drawing political and public attention.

On Thursday, 29 October 2026, the Police Ministry confirmed that Cachalia had asked Cabinet to approve Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s appointment as national head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, better known as the Hawks.

The appointment process is governed by the South African Police Service Act. The police minister makes the appointment with Cabinet’s agreement, and it must then be reported to Parliament. For now, Cabinet has not made a final decision, and no court challenge has been confirmed as having been filed.

The dispute is especially charged because O’Sullivan and Mkhwanazi have clashed publicly before. Their disagreements have surfaced in parliamentary discussions and investigations into alleged corruption, criminal infiltration and interference in law enforcement.

Mkhwanazi came to national attention in July 2025 after making serious allegations about senior officials and people connected to the criminal justice system. Those claims led to major political developments, including parliamentary inquiries and the establishment of the Madlanga Commission. O’Sullivan has also appeared before parliamentary structures investigating alleged police misconduct and corruption.

Cachalia has argued that the Hawks need permanent leadership. The unit has been without a permanent national head since General Godfrey Lebeya retired in May 2025, with Lieutenant-General Siphesihle Nkosi serving in an acting role. The Hawks investigate organised crime, corruption and other serious offences, making the choice of their leader a matter of public importance.

The process now faces two tests: whether Cabinet supports the recommendation, and whether the government responds to calls for more transparency. A threat of legal action is not a court ruling, and a proposed appointment is not a completed one. But the public has a clear interest in knowing how such a powerful position is filled—and how the process can be trusted.

Should appointments to top law-enforcement roles be opened to greater public scrutiny, or should the decision remain with the government?

Source: https://x.com/ZANewsFlash/status/2116106698624544868