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 rejects the assertion by the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) that our application to review the disciplinary outcomes concerning Presidential Protection Service officers, General Wally Rhoode and Constable Hennie Rekhoto, amounts to “political interference”.

POPCRU is entitled to defend the labour rights of its members. What it is not entitled to do is confuse the protection of those rights with immunity from judicial scrutiny.

To be clear, ActionSA has not constituted itself as an employer, disciplinary tribunal or trade union. We have approached an independent court to review whether a process undertaken within the South African Police Service, concerning public officials exercising public functions, was lawful, rational and procedurally proper.

POPCRU President Thulani Ngwenya’s argument that discipline is a matter between employer and employee and therefore a “terrain” into which ActionSA should not enter is misleading. 

Taken to its logical conclusion, that proposition would mean that an internal disciplinary process within a public institution becomes effectively insulated from scrutiny merely because it concerns an employment relationship. He is wrong.

This matter cannot be divorced from its extraordinary public context. It concerns members of the Presidential Protection Service and conduct arising from the Phala Phala affair, a matter that has generated profound questions about accountability at the highest levels of the state.

Our review application does not presume the guilt of General Rhoode or Constable Rekhoto. Nor does it seek to deprive either officer of the labour and constitutional protections to which they are entitled. 

It asks a different and entirely legitimate question: was the process by which they were cleared lawful, rational and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny?

If POPCRU is satisfied that the disciplinary process was beyond reproach, then an independent court reviewing that process should pose no threat to either the Union or its members.

What should concern POPCRU, ActionSA and every South African is the opposite proposition: that politically sensitive disciplinary processes involving senior state officials should simply be accepted without scrutiny because they occurred behind the walls of an employer/employee relationship.

ActionSA therefore reiterate our rejection of the suggestion that exercising the constitutional right to approach a court amount to political targeting. 

Courts exist precisely so that disputes about the lawful exercise of public power can be determined independently rather than by political parties, trade unions or the institutions whose conduct is being questioned.

POPCRU may defend its members. ActionSA will defend the public interest. Neither should fear the scrutiny of an independent court.

Issued by ActionSA National Spokesperson Lerato Ngobeni