ActionSA has approached the North Gauteng High Court in an attempt to force the South African Police Service to disclose records relating to disciplinary proceedings that cleared two Presidential Protection Service members implicated in the fallout from the Phala Phala farm robbery.
The opposition party says the disciplinary process involving Major General Wally Rhoode and Constable Rekhoto was inadequate and amounted to an attempt to shield officials who allegedly played a role in the handling and investigation of the robbery at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Limpopo farm.
ActionSA National Chairperson Michael Beaumont said the party had launched the application after a lengthy battle to obtain the records of decision relating to the disciplinary hearings.
According to the party, both the Public Protector and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate had previously made findings concerning Rhoode and Rekhoto.
The party says it was forced to take legal action against the police minister before IPID’s investigation, which had been classified as “Top Secret”, was declassified and released.
ActionSA says the disciplinary records it subsequently obtained raised further questions.
The party claims the record relating to Rhoode’s disciplinary process was only four pages, while Rekhoto’s was two pages. It alleges the documents contained no evidence that witnesses were called or that substantive evidence was led.
ActionSA further claims neither the Public Protector nor IPID participated in the disciplinary proceedings and that none of the misconduct provisions identified by IPID were included in the charge sheets.
Beaumont described the process as a “sham” designed to protect officials accused of breaking the law in an attempt to protect the President.
The party’s court application is structured in two stages.
The first seeks an order compelling SAPS to provide the full record of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. ActionSA says the information is necessary before it can challenge the decisions that cleared the two officers.
Among the documents being sought are compliance reports submitted to the Public Protector and IPID, records concerning the appointment of the presiding officers, the complete disciplinary records, further investigations conducted by SAPS and a 2023 statement by Rekhoto that was allegedly deemed inadmissible during the 2024 disciplinary hearing.
The party is also seeking the charge sheets and evidence that resulted in the exclusion of misconduct provisions identified by IPID.
Another document sought is the 2020 incident book in which Rhoode allegedly recorded the robbery. ActionSA says the book was later removed from storage and was in Rhoode’s unsupervised custody when IPID investigated the matter.
The second stage of the application will seek to challenge the decisions that cleared Rhoode and Rekhoto and compel SAPS to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings, ActionSA said.
The party is relying on Section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides for the binding effect of Public Protector remedial action, as well as provisions of the IPID Act dealing with disciplinary action arising from IPID recommendations.
The latest legal challenge adds another layer to the long-running political and legal fallout from the Phala Phala robbery.
It also comes as Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee continues preparations for its revived inquiry into the President’s conduct relating to the farm robbery.
The committee has recommended Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC as its evidence leader after a vote in which Madonsela received nine votes against seven for Advocate Kate Hofmeyr. Parliament still has to complete the formal appointment process.
The evidence leader will play a central role in guiding the presentation and testing of evidence before the committee.
The committee’s work was, however, temporarily disrupted after Ramaphosa successfully obtained an interdict preventing public impeachment hearings from proceeding pending the determination of his review application. The committee subsequently resolved to appeal that ruling. (Parliament of South Africa)
The committee has also agreed that Ramaphosa will not be its first witness. Instead, it wants to establish a case before calling on the President to respond. It has said that, if necessary, he could ultimately be summoned.
The committee has further resolved that members of the independent panel that produced the report underpinning the impeachment process will not be called to testify. Parliament said their mandate ended when they submitted their report and that the evidence leader would guide the committee through the report and its evidence. (Parliament of South Africa)
ActionSA says its court challenge and broader campaign over Phala Phala are aimed at ensuring accountability, arguing that institutions should not apply different standards when allegations involve the President.
The party says it will continue pursuing the matter until it has obtained the information it believes was withheld from the public and determined whether the disciplinary processes were lawful and credible.
