ActionSA has instructed its legal team to institute proceedings in the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria to review and set aside the South African Police Service’s disciplinary findings relating to Major General Wally Rhoode and Brigadier Hennie Rekhoto, arising from their conduct during the investigation into the Phala Phala burglary.
Having carefully analysed the Record of Decision obtained through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), ActionSA believes the disciplinary process raises serious questions regarding its rationality, its treatment of the evidence, and its stark departure from the findings previously made by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Public Protector. In short, it is a poorly constructed whitewash.
This legal action represents the culmination of ActionSA’s sustained efforts to uncover the truth behind the Phala Phala scandal. It was ActionSA that secured and published the IPID investigation report in April this year revealing serious findings against members of the President’s Protection Service.
It was ActionSA that subsequently exposed, through parliamentary questions to the Acting Minister of Police, that SAPS had cleared the implicated officers in internal disciplinary proceedings. Having now obtained the full Record of Decision, ActionSA has completed a detailed comparative analysis of the IPID report, the Public Protector’s report and SAPS’ disciplinary findings. That analysis reveals material and unexplained contradictions that demand judicial scrutiny.
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. ActionSA will therefore pursue accountability through both the courts and Parliament to ensure that these contradictions are properly interrogated.
Why ActionSA is approaching the High Court
ActionSA’s analysis demonstrates that SAPS’ disciplinary findings materially depart from the conclusions reached by both IPID and the Public Protector on key aspects of the Phala Phala investigation. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns regarding whether the disciplinary proceedings properly evaluated the available evidence and applied the SAPS Disciplinary Regulations correctly.
Among the most significant contradictions identified are:
1. Contradictory findings regarding the duty to report and register a criminal case
While both IPID and the Public Protector found that General Rhoode failed to comply with his statutory obligations under section 13 of the SAPS Act by failing to report the crime through the prescribed chain of command and ensure that a criminal case was registered, the disciplinary process effectively concluded that responsibility rested elsewhere, including with the farm manager. This directly contradicts the findings of both independent oversight bodies.
2. Contradictory findings regarding the unofficial investigation
The Public Protector found that General Rhoode assembled and directed an unofficial criminal investigation into the burglary without a registered SAPS case. IPID similarly concluded that members investigated matters beyond their lawful mandate. The disciplinary findings, however, substantially accept explanations advanced by the implicated officers and reject allegations of misconduct.
3. Contradictory findings relating to the Namibia trip
IPID questioned General Rhoode’s explanation for travelling to Namibia, noting inconsistencies between his account and contemporaneous documentation. The disciplinary findings accept aspects of General Rhoode’s explanation despite acknowledging that key corroborating evidence—including a statement from President Cyril Rampahosa’s now former political advisor Dr Bejani Chauke—was never obtained.
4. Contradictory findings regarding Brigadier Rekhoto’s responsibilities
IPID concluded that Brigadier Rekhoto was aware that a serious criminal offence had been committed and was obliged to ensure that the matter was properly registered and dealt with through ordinary policing channels. The disciplinary process instead concluded that responsibility rested with more senior officials, notwithstanding evidence that the matter had exceeded the scope of the Presidential Protection Service’s functions.
5. Failure to address the bulk of IPID’s findings
Perhaps most concerning is that the disciplinary process failed to deal with the majority of the misconduct identified by IPID. Alleged contraventions of key SAPS Disciplinary Regulations — including failures to comply with legal obligations, acting outside lawful authority, falsifying records, and conduct bringing the Service into disrepute — were never properly tested. Nor did the disciplinary findings meaningfully engage with the Public Protector’s findings, despite directing that action be taken.
6. Exclusion of key evidence
The disciplinary findings record that Brigadier Rekhoto’s earlier statement was ruled inadmissible because it was allegedly obtained under duress. The exclusion of potentially contradictory evidence raises obvious questions about whether the disciplinary process sought to resolve inconsistencies or avoid them.
7. No evidence of a meaningful disciplinary hearing
The Record of Decision — running to just four pages in one matter and two in the other — contain little indication of a robust disciplinary process. There is no meaningful analysis of competing evidence, no indication of witnesses being properly tested, and repeated reliance on corroborating statements that were not produced. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the disciplinary proceedings.
These are not minor procedural differences. They represent materially different conclusions reached by different state institutions examining substantially the same conduct. Those contradictions cannot simply be ignored.
It is for the abovementioned reasons that ActionSA will be approaching the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria to review and set aside the findings of the disciplinary processes conducted against Major-General Wally Rhoode and Brigadier Hennie Rekhoto, wherein ActionSA will approcah the High Court, amongst others, to test whether the process undertaken was procedurally correct and whether the evidence presented in the disciplinary matters was rationally connected to the findings of the presiding officer and, if not, which is our contention, then the findings should be set aside.
Parliamentary Action
In addition to the intended court proceedings, ActionSA will formally request that the complete disciplinary record be placed before Parliament’s Section 89 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 the Committee to explain how such fundamentally different conclusions were reached. Additional parliamentary questions will also be submitted to the Acting Minister of Police regarding the disciplinary process, the evidence considered, and whether the National Commissioner accepts the clear inconsistencies between SAPS’ findings and those of IPID.
The Constitutional Court has already made clear that Parliament failed in its constitutional responsibilities when it previously dealt with the Phala Phala matter. Parliament now has an obligation to ensure that all relevant evidence, including significant developments that have emerged since 2022, is properly considered. The Section 89 Committee must follow the evidence wherever it leads.
South Africans deserve nothing less than the full truth. ActionSA will continue to use every lawful parliamentary and legal mechanism available to ensure that no person, no institution and no public office is shielded from constitutional accountability.
ActionSA to Challenge SAPS’ Phala Phala Disciplinary Findings in Court
ActionSA has instructed its legal team to institute proceedings in the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria to review and set aside the South African Police Service’s disciplinary findings relating to Major General Wally Rhoode and Brigadier Hennie Rekhoto, arising from their conduct during the investigation into the Phala Phala burglary.
Having carefully analysed the Record of Decision obtained through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), ActionSA believes the disciplinary process raises serious questions regarding its rationality, its treatment of the evidence, and its stark departure from the findings previously made by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Public Protector. In short, it is a poorly constructed whitewash.
This legal action represents the culmination of ActionSA’s sustained efforts to uncover the truth behind the Phala Phala scandal. It was ActionSA that secured and published the IPID investigation report in April this year revealing serious findings against members of the President’s Protection Service.
It was ActionSA that subsequently exposed, through parliamentary questions to the Acting Minister of Police, that SAPS had cleared the implicated officers in internal disciplinary proceedings. Having now obtained the full Record of Decision, ActionSA has completed a detailed comparative analysis of the IPID report, the Public Protector’s report and SAPS’ disciplinary findings. That analysis reveals material and unexplained contradictions that demand judicial scrutiny.
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. ActionSA will therefore pursue accountability through both the courts and Parliament to ensure that these contradictions are properly interrogated.
Why ActionSA is approaching the High Court
ActionSA’s analysis demonstrates that SAPS’ disciplinary findings materially depart from the conclusions reached by both IPID and the Public Protector on key aspects of the Phala Phala investigation. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns regarding whether the disciplinary proceedings properly evaluated the available evidence and applied the SAPS Disciplinary Regulations correctly.
Among the most significant contradictions identified are:
1. Contradictory findings regarding the duty to report and register a criminal case
While both IPID and the Public Protector found that General Rhoode failed to comply with his statutory obligations under section 13 of the SAPS Act by failing to report the crime through the prescribed chain of command and ensure that a criminal case was registered, the disciplinary process effectively concluded that responsibility rested elsewhere, including with the farm manager. This directly contradicts the findings of both independent oversight bodies.
2. Contradictory findings regarding the unofficial investigation
The Public Protector found that General Rhoode assembled and directed an unofficial criminal investigation into the burglary without a registered SAPS case. IPID similarly concluded that members investigated matters beyond their lawful mandate. The disciplinary findings, however, substantially accept explanations advanced by the implicated officers and reject allegations of misconduct.
3. Contradictory findings relating to the Namibia trip
IPID questioned General Rhoode’s explanation for travelling to Namibia, noting inconsistencies between his account and contemporaneous documentation. The disciplinary findings accept aspects of General Rhoode’s explanation despite acknowledging that key corroborating evidence—including a statement from President Cyril Rampahosa’s now former political advisor Dr Bejani Chauke—was never obtained.
4. Contradictory findings regarding Brigadier Rekhoto’s responsibilities
IPID concluded that Brigadier Rekhoto was aware that a serious criminal offence had been committed and was obliged to ensure that the matter was properly registered and dealt with through ordinary policing channels. The disciplinary process instead concluded that responsibility rested with more senior officials, notwithstanding evidence that the matter had exceeded the scope of the Presidential Protection Service’s functions.
5. Failure to address the bulk of IPID’s findings
Perhaps most concerning is that the disciplinary process failed to deal with the majority of the misconduct identified by IPID. Alleged contraventions of key SAPS Disciplinary Regulations — including failures to comply with legal obligations, acting outside lawful authority, falsifying records, and conduct bringing the Service into disrepute — were never properly tested. Nor did the disciplinary findings meaningfully engage with the Public Protector’s findings, despite directing that action be taken.
6. Exclusion of key evidence
The disciplinary findings record that Brigadier Rekhoto’s earlier statement was ruled inadmissible because it was allegedly obtained under duress. The exclusion of potentially contradictory evidence raises obvious questions about whether the disciplinary process sought to resolve inconsistencies or avoid them.
7. No evidence of a meaningful disciplinary hearing
The Record of Decision — running to just four pages in one matter and two in the other — contain little indication of a robust disciplinary process. There is no meaningful analysis of competing evidence, no indication of witnesses being properly tested, and repeated reliance on corroborating statements that were not produced. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the disciplinary proceedings.
These are not minor procedural differences. They represent materially different conclusions reached by different state institutions examining substantially the same conduct. Those contradictions cannot simply be ignored.
It is for the abovementioned reasons that ActionSA will be approaching the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria to review and set aside the findings of the disciplinary processes conducted against Major-General Wally Rhoode and Brigadier Hennie Rekhoto, wherein ActionSA will approcah the High Court, amongst others, to test whether the process undertaken was procedurally correct and whether the evidence presented in the disciplinary matters was rationally connected to the findings of the presiding officer and, if not, which is our contention, then the findings should be set aside.
Parliamentary Action
In addition to the intended court proceedings, ActionSA will formally request that the complete disciplinary record be placed before Parliament’s Section 89 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 the Committee to explain how such fundamentally different conclusions were reached. Additional parliamentary questions will also be submitted to the Acting Minister of Police regarding the disciplinary process, the evidence considered, and whether the National Commissioner accepts the clear inconsistencies between SAPS’ findings and those of IPID.
The Constitutional Court has already made clear that Parliament failed in its constitutional responsibilities when it previously dealt with the Phala Phala matter. Parliament now has an obligation to ensure that all relevant evidence, including significant developments that have emerged since 2022, is properly considered. The Section 89 Committee must follow the evidence wherever it leads.
South Africans deserve nothing less than the full truth. ActionSA will continue to use every lawful parliamentary and legal mechanism available to ensure that no person, no institution and no public office is shielded from constitutional accountability.