The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) has reaffirmed its findings into the conduct of senior police officials linked to the 2020 Phala Phala farm burglary, saying its investigation was conducted impartially and strictly within its legal mandate to examine police conduct.
On Friday, IPID said its report had recently attracted renewed public attention and had been surrounded by what it described as misinformation, prompting the directorate to clarify the scope and outcomes of its investigation.
IPID spokesperson Phaladi Shuping said the directorate’s probe was conducted in terms of Section 28 of the IPID Act 1 of 2011, which limits its authority to investigating alleged misconduct by members of the South African Police Service (SAPS), rather than the underlying criminal investigation, which falls under other law enforcement agencies.
“The Phala Phala Farm investigation was also conducted by other agencies, including the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), whose focus was on the criminal aspect of the incident that occurred at the farm,” Shuping said.
The burglary at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo in 2020 sparked widespread political controversy and multiple parallel investigations. It has been widely reported that foreign currency, allegedly amounting to around US$4 million (approximately R60 million at the time), was stolen from the property following a buffalo sale transaction. The Presidency has previously disputed aspects of the allegations, including claims around the scale and handling of cash kept on the farm.
According to IPID’s findings, Major General WP Rhoode and Constable HH Rekhotso breached provisions of the SAPS Act 68 of 1995. The watchdog found that the two officers failed to immediately inform their commanding officer after becoming aware of a prescribed offence.
IPID further concluded that the officers conducted an investigation without formally registering a case on the SAPS case management system or linking it to a designated police station. The report also noted that the incident was not properly reflected in the SAPS Annual Report for the 2020/21 financial year, among other procedural shortcomings identified during the probe.
Although the investigation was concluded in 2023, IPID said the report remained classified until 2 February 2026 to avoid prejudicing a parallel investigation by the DPCI, which was ongoing at the time and involved overlapping evidential elements.
Following the completion of its work, IPID submitted its findings and recommendations to SAPS, calling for disciplinary action against the two officials. In line with Section 30 of the IPID Act, SAPS was also required to report back to the Minister of Police and IPID on the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings instituted.
IPID said SAPS conducted its own internal disciplinary process, which produced a different outcome from IPID’s recommendations. However, the oversight body maintained that its conclusions remain valid and evidence-based.
“While IPID acknowledges the internal disciplinary mechanisms available to SAPS, it remains guided by its legislative mandate and stands by its findings and recommendations as they were based on the evidence gathered,” spokesperson Phaladi Shuping said.
The directorate added that it would continue engaging with SAPS to strengthen accountability, consistency, and public confidence in the handling of misconduct cases involving police officers.
The report has since reignited political debate, with several parties calling for further independent scrutiny of the matter.
ActionSA has called on the Public Protector to reopen the investigation, arguing that the IPID findings raise serious questions about how aspects of the case were handled within law enforcement structures. The party said an independent review is necessary to restore public confidence.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM) also welcomed renewed attention on the matter, saying it highlights the need for transparency where allegations involve both law enforcement officials and the highest office in the country.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) echoed similar concerns, stating that conflicting outcomes between SAPS disciplinary processes and IPID findings point to systemic inconsistencies that warrant parliamentary oversight.
As political pressure continues to mount, the Phala Phala burglary case remains a flashpoint in national debate, with renewed calls for clarity, accountability, and independent scrutiny of both police conduct and institutional decision-making.
