ActionSA to challenge SAPS findings in Phala Phala case
ActionSA says it will approach the courts to challenge the outcome of a South African Police Service (SAPS) disciplinary process that cleared two members of the Presidential Protection Unit implicated in the Phala Phala scandal, describing the process as deeply flawed and lacking credibility.
The party briefed the media on what it called serious inconsistencies between findings made by independent oversight bodies and the conclusions reached through SAPS’ internal disciplinary proceedings.
At the centre of the matter is the 2020 theft of a large sum of foreign currency from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo. The incident only became public in 2022, sparking widespread controversy and raising questions about why the crime was not reported through formal police channels.
Investigations by both the Public Protector and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) later found that members of the Presidential Protection Unit may have violated several SAPS regulations.
These included allegations of failing to open a criminal case docket, conducting investigations outside the bounds of the law, and misusing state resources in the handling of the incident.
The Public Protector subsequently directed SAPS to institute disciplinary action against the implicated officers within 60 days. However, ActionSA says this directive was not complied with, and disciplinary hearings were only convened several months later, in early 2024.
Despite the seriousness of the findings, the hearings ultimately cleared Major General Wally Ruda and Briagidier Hennie Rekhoto of wrongdoing — a decision ActionSA says undermines accountability within law enforcement.
ActionSA National Chairperson Michael Beaumont said the outcome points to a deliberate effort to shield those implicated.
“This record of decision, in our opinion, amounts to a cover-up and has just about the same credibility, and I’m going to take you through exactly why it is that we hold this point of view.”
Beaumont says IPID had identified at least eight potential breaches of police conduct, yet only a small number of these were pursued during the disciplinary process.
“The investigation found eight regulations, and quite simply the police chose only to charge them in respect of two… the remaining six were never tested.”
He further criticised the apparent lack of depth in the proceedings, noting that the official disciplinary record is only six pages long.
“There is no way that six pages in total can do justice to a proper disciplinary process that was required by the Public Protector,” he said.
ActionSA argues that this raises serious concerns about whether the disciplinary process was conducted thoroughly and in good faith, particularly given the gravity of the allegations involved.
The party also highlighted what it described as a lack of transparency, saying it had to engage in a protracted legal battle to access the disciplinary records. This, it said, added to concerns that there was an effort to keep key details from public scrutiny.
🚨 BREAKING: ActionSA has officially released the records of the disciplinary hearing against members of the President’s own Protection Unit.
— Michael Beaumont (@ME_Beaumont) July 17, 2026
SAPS’ four page report into Wally Rhoode proves this is a whitewash. pic.twitter.com/ffPQrPqb3c
ActionSA Member of Parliament Lerato Ngobeni said the outcome damages public confidence in the police service and calls into question the integrity of internal accountability mechanisms.
“South Africans must ask themselves how such serious findings by independent bodies can simply be brushed aside through an internal process that fails to inspire confidence.”
Ngobeni also pointed to delays in instituting disciplinary action, saying SAPS failed to act within the timeframe set by the Public Protector.
“The failure to act within the prescribed timeframe, and the eventual outcome, raises serious questions about whether there was ever any intention to hold those involved accountable.”
The party says the combination of delays, limited charges, and eventual acquittals suggests a systemic failure to properly address the findings of oversight bodies.
ActionSA has now indicated that it would pursue a judicial review to have the disciplinary outcome set aside. It said it would also continue to raise the matter in Parliament as part of broader efforts to ensure accountability within SAPS and restore public trust in law enforcement institutions.
ALSO READ:
ActionSA has formally written to the Chairperson of the Impeachment Committee to consider the Record of Decision against members of the PPU, to request SAPS to produce the record’s annexures, and to compel IPID and SAPS to appear before the committee. pic.twitter.com/LQkuyIiYHp
— Michael Beaumont (@ME_Beaumont) July 17, 2026
