ActionSA has approached the North Gauteng High Court to challenge the South African Police Service’s (SAPS) handling of disciplinary proceedings that cleared Presidential Protection Service (PPS) members General Wally Rhoode and Constable Rekhoto of wrongdoing linked to the Phala Phala matter.
The party is seeking access to records surrounding the disciplinary proceedings, which it describes as a politically motivated process aimed at shielding the two officers.
ActionSA national chairperson Michael Beaumont said the legal action followed a lengthy effort by the party to obtain the records of decisions in the disciplinary cases.
The party announced in July that it intended taking SAPS to court after receiving what it regarded as inadequate records of the proceedings.
According to ActionSA, the disciplinary records it eventually obtained were only four and two pages long respectively and did not indicate that witnesses had been called or evidence presented.
The party also said neither the Public Protector nor the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) participated in the disciplinary proceedings, despite both institutions having previously made findings concerning Rhoode and Rekhoto.
ActionSA further alleges that none of the offences identified by IPID were included in the charge sheet used in the disciplinary proceedings.
Beaumont described the process as a “sham” designed to protect the officers.
“It is clear that this disciplinary process was a sham to protect those who broke the law to protect the President for his breaking of the law,” he said.
The legal challenge follows ActionSA’s earlier efforts to obtain the IPID investigation into the matter.
The party said it was only after taking legal action against the Police Minister that the investigation was declassified from its “Top Secret” classification and made available.
ActionSA’s latest application is being pursued in two stages.
The first part seeks access to additional information and documentation through a Rule 53 application, which would allow the party to examine the full record surrounding the disciplinary proceedings.
The party said the information would then inform a second application challenging the decision to clear Rhoode and Rekhoto and seeking an order compelling SAPS to conduct credible disciplinary proceedings.
Among the information ActionSA is seeking are compliance reports submitted by SAPS to the Public Protector and IPID, relating to medical steps prescribed by the two institutions.
It also wants records relating to the appointment of the presiding officers, including the appointment of a PPS brigadier to preside over Rekhoto’s disciplinary hearing.
The party is further seeking the complete record of the disciplinary decisions, any further investigations conducted by SAPS, and Rekhoto’s 2023 statement, which ActionSA says was deemed inadmissible during the 2024 disciplinary hearing.
It is also seeking the charge sheets and evidence presented during the hearings, particularly information relating to misconduct provisions identified by IPID but allegedly excluded from the charges.
Another document sought is the 2020 Incident Book in which Rhoode allegedly recorded the robbery at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm. ActionSA said the book was removed from storage and was in Rhoode’s unsupervised custody during the IPID investigation.
The party’s legal challenge is based, among other things, on its interpretation of constitutional and legislative obligations governing the implementation of findings by oversight bodies.
ActionSA relies on Section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution, which it says makes findings of the Public Protector binding.
It also relies on Section 30(c) of the IPID Act, which it says requires the relevant SAPS officials to institute disciplinary proceedings in accordance with IPID recommendations and report on the institution and outcome of those proceedings.
ActionSA argues that the disciplinary process followed in the cases of Rhoode and Rekhoto failed to meet those requirements.
Beaumont said the party believed the courts would ultimately find that the process was unlawful.
The party said its immediate objective was to obtain the outstanding records before deciding how to proceed with the second part of its legal challenge.
Despite adverse findings by both the Public Protector and IPID, an internal SAPS disciplinary hearing cleared both Rhoode and Rekhoto of all wrongdoing. The internal inquiry concluded there was no misconduct, allowing Rhoode to remain active in his high-profile post.
This decision caused a significant political backlash, with Members of Parliament expressing outrage over what they viewed as “special treatment” and a failure to enforce accountability within law enforcement.
ActionSA has continued to pursue the Phala Phala matter, arguing that accountability should apply equally to public officials regardless of their political standing.
The party said it would continue pursuing what it described as a broader fight for accountability over the handling of the scandal.
“If justice bends according to convenience, comfort or political interest then the concepts of innocence and guilt lose their meaning for everyone else,” Beaumont said.
The party said it would continue pursuing the matter from Parliament and through the courts, arguing that institutions responsible for accountability should not be permitted to shield individuals from scrutiny.