ActionSA takes SAPS to High Court over disciplinary findings in Phala Phala matter

ActionSA has approached the North Gauteng High Court to challenge what it describes as a politically motivated attempt by the South African Police Service (SAPS) to shield members of the Presidential Protection Service (PPS) involved in the controversial Phala Phala matter.

The opposition party filed its court papers on Thursday, 20 August 2026, following a prolonged legal battle to obtain the records of disciplinary proceedings that cleared General Wally Rhoode and Constable Rekhoto of wrongdoing.

ActionSA said its decision to pursue legal action followed findings made by both the Public Protector and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) against the two PPS members.

The party said it had announced its intention to take legal action on 17 July after allegedly struggling to obtain the records of the disciplinary decisions.

ActionSA said it previously had to take legal action against the Police Minister before an IPID investigation into the matter was declassified from its “Top Secret” classification and made available to the public.

According to the party, the records it subsequently received relating to the disciplinary hearings were only four and two pages long respectively.

ActionSA claims the documents contained no indication that witnesses had been called or evidence presented during the proceedings. It further alleges that neither the Public Protector nor IPID participated in the disciplinary process and that offences identified by IPID were not included in the charge sheets.

The party has described the process as a “sham” intended to protect those implicated in the Phala Phala matter.

ActionSA's court application is being pursued in two stages.

The first is a Rule 53 application seeking access to information and documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings. The party said it wants the full record to determine how the process was conducted.

Among the documents sought are compliance reports submitted to the Public Protector and IPID, records relating to the appointment of presiding officers, the full disciplinary records, further SAPS investigations and a 2023 statement by Rekhoto that was allegedly deemed inadmissible during the 2024 disciplinary hearing.

The party is also seeking charge sheets and evidence presented during the proceedings, as well as a 2020 incident book in which Rhoode allegedly recorded the robbery at the centre of the Phala Phala controversy.

ActionSA said it intends, after receiving the information, to challenge the decision to clear Rhoode and Rekhoto and seek an order compelling SAPS to conduct credible disciplinary proceedings.

The party's legal challenge is based, among other things, on Section 182(1)(c) of the Constitution, which ActionSA argues makes findings of the Public Protector binding in law.

It also relies on Section 30(c) of the IPID Act, which it says requires relevant SAPS officials to initiate disciplinary proceedings in line with IPID recommendations and report on the institution and outcome of those proceedings.

ActionSA said it was confident that the court would find that the disciplinary process violated both the Constitution and the IPID Act.

The party has vowed to continue pursuing the Phala Phala matter and other related legal efforts, saying its objective is to ensure accountability and transparency.

“If justice bends according to convenience, comfort or political interest then the concepts of innocence and guilt lose their meaning for everyone else,” ActionSA said.

The party described its legal battle as a “David vs Goliath” fight and accused political parties in the Government of National Unity of failing to hold President Cyril Ramaphosa accountable.