When questioning resumed, the tone was noticeably different.

The earlier confrontation over legal technicalities had left the witness shaken, and one committee member began by acknowledging the emotional strain she appeared to be under.

The member referred to her earlier reaction as a “trauma response” and expressed hope that she had sought support for it.

But the sympathy quickly gave way to pointed questions.

The first issue was simple but heavy with implications: did Sarah Jane Trent understand the seriousness of the allegations being made against her?

The committee wanted to know whether she believed there was any basis for claims that she and controversial anti-corruption investigator Paul O’Sullivan had interfered with official law enforcement processes.

Trent did not hesitate.

“The allegations against myself are ridiculous,” she said, before quickly clarifying that she meant no disrespect to the committee.

She acknowledged that the accusations were serious and that lawmakers had a duty to investigate them.

But she insisted that she knew she had done nothing wrong.

That firm denial set the stage for a deeper line of questioning.

A committee member pointed to a section of her affidavit where she had described the purpose of her testimony.

In that document she referenced allegations about O’Sullivan’s “involvement, interference, and infiltration” in law enforcement structures.

The member paused on those words.

They were not interchangeable, he pointed out.

Each carried a different meaning and a different level of seriousness.

So which was it?

Had O’Sullivan simply been involved with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate?

Had he interfered with its work?

Or had he infiltrated the institution itself?

Trent was unequivocal.

“There was no infiltration.

No interference,” she said.

Any involvement, she explained, was limited to providing information or assistance if investigators requested it.

The distinction mattered enormously in the context of the hearing, because the committee was investigating allegations that private actors might have improperly inserted themselves into official law enforcement investigations.

If that had happened, it would raise profound legal questions about the integrity of those investigations.

The questioning then shifted to Trent’s relationship with O’Sullivan himself.

She explained that she had left his employment in 2022 and that the two were no longer in regular contact.

Their relationship, she said, had ended amicably.

They were not friends outside of work, and their recent communication had only resumed because of the parliamentary inquiry.

But committee members seemed skeptical.

They turned to the broader mission of Forensics for Justice, the organization where Trent had worked alongside O’Sullivan.

According to her affidavit, the group had focused on identifying elements within the criminal justice system that had allegedly been “captured” by corrupt or politically connected individuals.

The committee wanted to know how such identification actually happened.

Did they launch investigations based on tips?

Media reports?

Internal suspicions?

Trent explained that many cases began with whistleblowers.

People would approach O’Sullivan with allegations and documents.

If there appeared to be substance to the claims, the organization would examine the information and potentially open a case.

Other times, she said, the starting point might be something reported in the media.

But that explanation led directly to another controversial case—the investigation into the national police commissioner.

A member asked how O’Sullivan had decided to investigate such a powerful figure.

Trent described a chain of events that allegedly began with a death threat and a witness involved in another investigation.

According to her recollection, the situation escalated when the witness was removed from a protection program, prompting complaints and media attention.

Eventually, police whistleblowers came forward, bringing new allegations to O’Sullivan.

From there, the investigation expanded.

But the committee member framed the sequence differently.

In his version, O’Sullivan had clashed with senior police leadership, taken his complaints to the media, and then used information from whistleblowers to build a case.

That, the member suggested bluntly, sounded dangerously close to extortion.

Trent rejected the suggestion.

“I wouldn’t regard that as extortion,” she said firmly.

The questioning then moved to another sensitive topic: her departure from O’Sullivan’s organization.

Why had she left?

Trent explained that she had reached a point where she simply wanted to move on and explore other opportunities.

She had resigned as a director but remained employed temporarily while searching for another job.

It was not the result of a conflict, she insisted.

The transition had been amicable.

From there, the discussion shifted again—this time toward her connection with Dr.

Iqbal Survé’s associate Dr.B.F. Chaw and a foundation she later joined.

Trent said she had first met Chaw while working at Forensics for Justice during a case involving allegations connected to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s son.

That contact eventually led to her later employment with the foundation.

But committee members appeared uneasy about the overlap between political figures, private investigators, and law enforcement investigations.

The hearing then returned to one of the most controversial incidents in the case: the visit to the home of former police commissioner General Khomotso Phahlane.

Why, the committee asked, were private investigators examining the house plans of a senior police official?

Trent explained that the investigation involved allegations that the property was far beyond what Phahlane could have afforded legitimately.

Using tools like Google Earth history, O’Sullivan had attempted to analyze when and how the house had been constructed.

But the committee remained troubled by the idea of civilians entering a private estate to obtain architectural plans.

One member pressed further, raising testimony that O’Sullivan had threatened a property manager with imprisonment if he refused to provide information.

Trent said she believed O’Sullivan had simply been quoting legal provisions regarding non-compliance with investigators, not issuing a personal threat.

Still, the member pointed out that O’Sullivan was not an IPID investigator.

Why was he conducting such interviews at all?

Trent responded that investigators often contact people who might have relevant information.

In her view, such inquiries were not unusual.

But the questioning grew even sharper when the committee turned to another issue: recordings.

Trent had said earlier that she frequently recorded meetings and conversations while working for O’Sullivan.

So why had she not submitted those recordings to the committee?

If the recordings proved that she never misrepresented herself as an IPID investigator, the member argued, they could completely clear her name.

Trent appeared momentarily surprised.

She acknowledged that she still had the recordings but admitted she had not thought to include them in the evidence bundle.

That answer seemed to puzzle several members of the committee.

The interrogation continued.

Another controversial topic involved a polygraph test arranged between senior officials connected to the case.

Trent admitted that she had helped organize the test at O’Sullivan’s request.

The committee questioned why a private individual would coordinate a polygraph related to matters involving IPID.

Trent said the situation had arisen after dramatic allegations about bribery and attempts to overthrow the government had surfaced in the media.

But the questioning did not stop there.

Members then asked about a WhatsApp group that allegedly included Trent alongside several IPID investigators and senior officials.

Why was a civilian in a messaging group with law enforcement officers?

Trent said the group had been created after death threats were reported and was intended to help keep everyone safe during the holiday period.

The explanation did little to ease the committee’s concerns.

Finally, the questioning reached one of its most explosive moments.

A member cited a letter from the national police commissioner stating that Trent’s arrest in the case had been lawful.

Earlier in the hearing, Trent had suggested that if anyone believed the arrest was lawful, “we have a problem.”

The member confronted her directly with the commissioner’s statement.

Trent did not back down.

“We have a big problem,” she replied.

The room fell quiet for a moment.

Then another committee member asked one final question about her earlier comments regarding state capture.

If the criminal justice system had indeed been captured, as she suggested, who exactly had done it?

Trent hesitated.

She said the situation involved complex struggles for power within the criminal justice system and that it could not be attributed to a single individual.

The committee pressed her to name names.

But before the exchange could continue much further, the chair intervened.

The hearing had already stretched late into the evening, and the session needed to move forward.

The questions, however, had exposed a deeper conflict at the heart of the inquiry: whether individuals like Sarah Jane Trent and Paul O’Sullivan were exposing corruption—or crossing dangerous legal boundaries in the process.

And that debate was far from over.