The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) clarified on Friday that Paul O’Sullivan’s statement that he funded the foundation to overturn Robert McBride’s suspension as executive director of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), was an “unfortunate mischaracterisation”.

Last week, during an online interview with journalist Alec Hogg, O’Sullivan stated he funded the foundation with a substantial amount of money to bring the application to have McBride’s suspension overturned and he was reinstated back at IPID.

The foundation confirmed that, separately, O’Sullivan made a once-off donation of R100 000 to the foundation in 2019.

“As Mr O’Sullivan’s donation was general in nature and not linked to any specific case, it was utilised by us in our core operations,” HSF explained.

The foundation pointed out that its involvement in the McBride matter was guided by its mission to advance constitutionalism and to safeguard the independence of key State institutions.

“In furthering our mission, we are committed never to compromise on our independence, such that we are able to effect our work without fear or favour,” it said.

HSF acted as amicus curiae in the 2015 case McBride v Minister of Police and Another (06588/2015) heard in the North Gauteng Pretoria High Court, as well as the subsequent 2016 Constitutional Court appeal.

Webber Wentzel acted as HSF’s pro bono legal representatives in the matter and received no payment for their services.

The HSF explained that during this public interest matter O’Sullivan, on behalf of Forensics for Justice, did engage in consultations with the foundation along with Webber Wentzel’s pro bono department.

In 2019, HSF again acted as amicus curiae in the urgent application brought by McBride in the North Gauteng Pretoria High Court where he opposed the non-renewal of his contract as executive director of IPID.

HSF appealed the matter, filing in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Helen Suzman Foundation v Robert McBride and Others.

“Our argument was that the process of renewing McBride’s contract lacked procedural integrity, and the settlement reached in the High Court case indirectly permitted executive influence over the renewal of the IPID executive director, compromising the independence of IPID,” explained the foundation.

HSF said it did not engage with O’Sullivan during this second matter.

Webber Wentzel and senior counsel again acted on a pro bono basis as the foundation’s legal representatives, it explained.