The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

ActionSA has filed its papers in the North Gauteng High Court against the South African Police Service (SAPS) for what the party deems to be a politically driven whitewash to shield members of the Presidential Protection Service (PPS) for their role in the Phala Phala cover-up. 

On 17 July 2026 ActionSA announced its intention to pursue legal action following a protracted legal process to obtain the record of decision of the disciplinary hearings that found PPS members General Wally Rhoode and Constable Rekhoto free of any wrongdoing. This is despite both the Public Protector and the Independent Policy Investigating Directorate (IPID) making a series of findings against both Rhoode and Rekhoto. 

It was only after taking legal action against the Police Minister that ActionSA was able to have the IPID investigation declassified from its questionable “Top Secret” classification and made available to the South African people. 

Upon learning of the disciplinary outcomes against the two PPS members, ActionSA pursued the records of decision in the disciplinary cases and was shocked by what the party received. The records were 4 and 2 pages respectively and revealed no record of witnesses being called or evidence being presented. Neither the Public Protector nor IPID participated in the process, despite their findings, and not one of the listed offences identified by IPID was included in the charge sheet.

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. 

ActionSA’s papers reflect a two-part application process that begins with a Rule 53 application for information so that the total record can be examined as well as various documents that are relevant to the question of the disciplinary process. ActionSA is confident that its application will be granted as the courts have affirmed the rights to this kind of public interest information when the respondents have revealed a pattern of obstructive behaviour to conceal what, on the face of it, is a highly questionable process. Upon the receipt of this information ActionSA will then be in a position to examine what has been denied to the South African people and pursue its 2nd part of its application to challenge the decision to absolve Rhoode and Rekhoto and compel the SAPS to run credible disciplinary processes against them.

Amongst the information sought by ActionSA in its Rule 53 application is inter alia: 

• The compliance reports submitted to the Public Protector and IPID demonstrating SAPS compliance with the medical steps prescribed by both institutions. 
• The record of appointments of presiding officers including a Brigadier in the PPS to preside over the hearing of Constable Rekhoto.
• the full record of decision reflecting the entirety of whatever disciplinary processes were followed; 
• further investigations conducted by the SAPS; 
• the 2023 statement by Constable Rekhoto that was deemed inadmissible in the 2024 disciplinary hearing; 
• the charge sheets and evidence led that excluded the identified provisions of misconduct identified by IPID;
• the 2020 Incident Book in which it is claimed that Gen Rhoode recorded the robbery which was removed from storage and in his custody unsupervised at the time of the IPID investigation.

ActionSA’s legal course of action is grounded in the fact that Section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa deems findings of the Public Protector to be binding in law. Similarly, Section 30(c) the IPID Act obliges the responsible SAPS functionaries to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the recommendations of the Eighth Respondent and to report on the institution and outcome of those proceedings. ActionSA is confident that the courts will agree that the sham of a disciplinary process conducted was in violation of both the Constitution and the IPID Act. 

ActionSA continues to pursue this matter and other related efforts pertaining to Phala Phala, to ensure that there is accountability for a President for whom every government institution has gone out of its way to protect. If justice bends according to convenience, comfort or political interest then the concepts of innocence and guilt lose their meaning for everyone else. Put differently, to tolerate or advocate for partial justice is to legitimize injustice itself because the exception made for one becomes a precedent that weakens protection for all.

ActionSA will continue fighting this David vs Goliath battle for the South African people from the opposition benches of a parliament where most parties have been silenced by their complicity in a GNU that depends on President Ramaphosa never facing accountability.

Issued by ActionSA National Chairperson Michael Beaumont