ActionSA has approached the North Gauteng High Court seeking access to the complete record of disciplinary proceedings that cleared two members of the Presidential Protection Service (PPS) in connection with the Phala Phala investigation, the party said on Thursday.
Party challenges integrity of disciplinary process
ActionSA said it filed papers after receiving what it described as an inadequate set of documents relating to the internal SAPS process that exonerated General Wally Rhoode and Constable Hennie Rekhoto. The party has commenced a Rule 53 application to compel disclosure of the full record and other material it considers necessary to assess whether the disciplinary proceedings met legal and procedural standards.
The party said the records it obtained comprised only four pages for one file and two pages for the other, with no indication that witnesses were called or that evidence was presented during the hearings. ActionSA further alleged that neither the Public Protector nor the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) participated in the disciplinary process despite having previously made findings against the two PPS members.
“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,” Beaumont said.
ActionSA said the short form of the records raised immediate concerns about whether the SAPS had followed a credible and transparent process. The party intends to use the documents it already possesses as the basis for further litigation aimed at overturning the decision to absolve Rhoode and Rekhoto and to compel SAPS to conduct what it calls a proper disciplinary inquiry.
Documents sought and next legal steps
In its court papers ActionSA listed several categories of material it wants disclosed before pursuing the substantive challenge. These include:
- the full record of the disciplinary proceedings against Rhoode and Rekhoto
- compliance reports submitted to the Public Protector and IPID
- documents relating to the appointment of the presiding officers for the disciplinary hearings
- any additional SAPS investigations and related material
The party said it will analyse these records to determine whether those who conducted the hearings followed established disciplinary rules and whether the matters were investigated thoroughly.
| Item | Party description |
|---|---|
| Initial records received | Two files (four pages; two pages) with no witness or evidence entries |
| Bodies not present | Public Protector and IPID not recorded as participants |
Context and implications
The Phala Phala affair, which has attracted significant public and political attention, has involved multiple investigatory strands and oversight bodies. ActionSA’s move highlights tensions over how internal police disciplinary processes engage with external oversight findings, particularly where alleged misconduct intersects with the conduct of individuals responsible for protecting state officials.
If the court orders full disclosure and the records confirm ActionSA’s concerns, the party has indicated it will pursue a second phase of litigation to set aside the disciplinary outcomes and seek an order compelling SAPS to rehear or properly investigate the matters. Conversely, if the records substantiate the SAPS findings, ActionSA’s case may be curtailed.
The North Gauteng High Court will first consider the Rule 53 application to determine whether ActionSA is entitled to the documents it seeks. SAPS has not been quoted in ActionSA’s statement published with the party’s court papers.
The outcome of this application could affect how future disciplinary matters that overlap with independent oversight reports are recorded and made available to interested parties and would feed into broader debate about transparency and accountability in law enforcement when investigations touch on the highest levels of state office.
