ActionSA has initiated legal proceedings in the Pretoria High Court to review and set aside the South African Police Service's (SAPS's) disciplinary findings clearing Major-General Wally Rhoode and Brigadier Hennie Rekhoto in the Phala Phala matter.

The party announced its legal challenge on Friday, following an analysis of the Record of Decision obtained through a Promotion of Access to Information Act request.

ActionSA has fiercely condemned the internal disciplinary process, labelling it a "poorly constructed whitewash" that lacks rationality and what it says are stark contradictions between the SAPS internal findings and the previous conclusions of two independent oversight bodies: the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Public Protector.

Both IPID and the Public Protector concluded that Rhoode breached Section 13 of the SAPS Act when he failed to report the Phala Phala burglary through the prescribed chain of command and did not ensure a criminal case was officially registered.

The internal process effectively absolved Rhoode, shifting the responsibility to external individuals, including the Phala Phala farm manager.

The Public Protector found that Rhoode assembled and directed an unofficial criminal investigation without an open SAPS case file. IPID similarly ruled that the officers acted well outside their lawful mandate.

ActionSA said the internal inquiry accepted the explanations offered by the implicated officers, completely rejecting the allegations of misconduct.

The internal disciplinary findings also produced what ActionSA says are deep contradictions regarding the team's controversial trip to Namibia. Furthermore, the party said the inquiry failed to properly address Rekhoto's specific responsibilities and completely ignored the bulk of the evidence gathered by external investigators.

ActionSA maintained that the internal SAPS mechanism was used to protect high-ranking officials rather than enforce accountability.

By taking the matter to the High Court, the party aims to legally nullify the disciplinary outcomes and force a rational, evidence-based reassessment of the officers' conduct.

“Two organs of State cannot investigate substantially the same conduct and reach fundamentally different conclusions without a full public explanation. South Africans deserve confidence that police disciplinary processes are lawful, impartial and evidence-based, particularly where the conduct under scrutiny concerns the investigation of alleged criminality involving the President of the Republic,” the party said.

ActionSA will formally request that the complete disciplinary record be placed before Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee as evidence relevant to its inquiry into the President's conduct in relation to the Phala Phala matter.

ActionSA will further request that both IPID and the chairperson of the SAPS disciplinary proceedings appear before that committee to explain how different conclusions were reached.

Additional parliamentary questions will also be submitted to Acting Minister of Police Firoz Cachalia regarding the disciplinary process, the evidence considered, and whether the National Commissioner accepts the clear inconsistencies between the SAPS's findings and those of IPID.