ActionSA takes SAPS to court over Rhoode, Rekhoto Phala Phala disciplinary findings

ActionSA has initiated legal proceedings in the North Gauteng High Court to contest the disciplinary process that cleared Presidential Protection Service members General Wally Rhoode and Constable Hennie Rekhoto of misconduct related to the Phala Phala investigation. The party, led by national chairperson Michael Beaumont, is demanding access to the complete record of the disciplinary proceedings in order to challenge the decision to exonerate the two officials.

Beaumont expressed shock at the limited information provided in the records, which did not mention witness testimonies or evidence presentation. He further alleged that neither the Public Protector nor the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) participated in the disciplinary process, despite both having issued findings against Rhoode and Rekhoto. None of the IPID's identified offenses appeared in the charge sheets.

This legal challenge stems from ActionSA's announcement in July, stating their intention to contest the SAPS disciplinary findings. After Rhoode and Rekhoto were cleared, ActionSA requested the records of decisions. Their court application begins with a Rule 53 request for access to the full record and other relevant documents related to the disciplinary proceedings.

They seek compliance reports submitted to the Public Protector and IPID, records concerning the appointment of presiding officers, and the complete disciplinary proceedings record. Additional documents include SAPS investigations, Rekhoto's 2023 statement (which was deemed inadmissible during the 2024 hearing), the 2020 Incident Book (allegedly removed from storage and in Rhoode's unsupervised custody during the IPID investigation), and the original charge sheets and evidence.

Beaumont asserts that the courts have recognized the right to public-interest information in cases where public institutions' conduct is under scrutiny. ActionSA bases their legal challenge on Sections 182(1)(c) of the Constitution and Section 30(c) of the IPID Act, arguing that the disciplinary process contravenes both legal documents.

The party claims this move conflicts with both the Constitution and the IPID Act, and will pursue the matter in courts and Parliament to seek accountability regarding the Phala Phala investigation. Beaumont warns that if justice is determined by convenience, comfort, or political interests, the concepts of innocence and guilt lose their significance for everyone.