f convicted, he - like the journalists - could face up to 15 years in prison. His attorney has also threatened that a criminal complaint could be laid against City Press, which last week exposed details of the interrogation which had been published in 2007.
Last week, O'Malley confirmed that he had "looked at part of the transcript in [Maharaj's] house" to "get a flavour of the type of questions he was being asked" during the interrogation.
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said that Maharaj "could also potentially be in breach of that section... unless he got permission" to show the documents to O'Malley.
"Although the purpose of the [national prosecuting authority] NPA Act is to protect people like him who have been interviewed, that section doesn't make an exception for him. "
"So if he disclosed the information it can also be a violation," De Vos said.
De Vos' opinion was borne out by other legal experts who spoke to City Press. Maharaj's lawyer, Rudi Krause, declined to comment.
Section 41 (6) of the act criminalises the "disclosure" to "any other person" of the "record of any evidence" given during a Section-28 inquiry without the permission of the National Director of Public Prosecutions Menzi Simelane.
The only other exceptions are if the "disclosure" is required by a court or if it is required for someone to "perform his or her functions in terms of [the NPA Act] or any other law".
