PRETORIA — ActionSA is approaching the North Gauteng High Court to challenge what it describes as a blatant police cover-up regarding the unlawful conduct of Presidential Protection Unit (PPU) officers in the Phala Phala farm scandal. The political party announced it has discovered new information indicating that the South African Police Service (SAPS) internal investigation that cleared top officers was a “sham” that deliberately ignored binding findings from both the Public Protector and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).
The legal challenge targets a 2024 SAPS disciplinary outcome that cleared PPU head Major-General Wally Rhoode and Constable Hlulani Rekhoto of contravening SAPS regulations. The two officers were accused of attempting to cover up the theft of millions of US dollars from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in 2020.
ActionSA national chairperson Michael Beaumont condemned the disciplinary process, comparing the outcome to the infamous “Nathi Nhleko fire pool” defense. Beaumont described the internal investigation as a joke and a masterclass in organized irresponsibility, noting that the disciplinary records were absurdly brief—only four pages and two pages long, respectively.
According to ActionSA, the SAPS disciplinary panel failed to call any witnesses, conducted no cross-corroboration of facts, and simply accepted the accused officers’ claims that they bore no responsibility to report the crime, shifting that burden solely onto the farm manager.
Critically, the party highlighted a stark discrepancy between investigative bodies. While IPID found that the two officers breached eight separate SAPS regulations by acting well outside their lawful mandates, the SAPS internal disciplinary hearing only investigated two of those eight alleged breaches.
A central point of contention is the officers’ cross-border travel to Namibia to interrogate suspects. Both the Public Protector and IPID previously flagged this operation as unlawful, fruitless, and wasteful expenditure, noting that PPU members and rented vehicles were deployed without proper authorization to retrieve suspects under questionable circumstances. ActionSA pointed out that Dr. Bejani Chauke, the president’s former special adviser, allegedly traveled to Namibia with Rhoode, yet the disciplinary panel never requested his statement to corroborate the account.
In a startling revelation from the disciplinary records, Major-General Rhoode reportedly claimed he traveled to Namibia at the direct direction of the president. ActionSA argues this not only contradicts his previous statements—potentially indicating perjury—but also places the responsibility for the questionable legal interrogations and wasteful expenditure directly at the president’s feet.
“The bottom line here is that these individuals, through their extralegal and unlawful criminal investigation, were protecting the president,” Beaumont stated. “Their efforts had nothing to do with the pursuit of justice and everything to do with protecting number one from accountability.”
ActionSA is not asking the High Court to dictate a specific disciplinary outcome. Instead, the party’s legal papers will pray for the court to direct the national police commissioner to exercise his powers to appoint an external, independent person to chair the disciplinary panels. Furthermore, ActionSA is demanding that the panel be empowered to subpoena witnesses and that a strict, time-bound process be enforced, allowing the party to hold SAPS in contempt if the process is delayed or ignored.
The party emphasized that the remedial actions of the Public Protector are legally binding unless explicitly set aside by a High Court. By challenging the current findings, ActionSA aims to force SAPS to redo the flawed process with the necessary legal scrutiny, while also pushing to have the complete disciplinary record served before the parliamentary impeachment committee.
Further announcements regarding the filing of the court papers are expected in the coming weeks.
