ActionSA has officially instructed its legal team to initiate proceedings in the Gauteng Division of the High Court to review and set aside the South African Police Service (SAPS) disciplinary findings regarding Major-General Wally Rhoode and Brigadier Hanekom. This legal action serves as a continuation of ActionSA's efforts to uncover the truth behind the Phala Phala scandal, following their publication of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) investigation report in April.
Discrepancies between investigations
The decision to approach the High Court stems from ActionSA's detailed comparative analysis of the IPID report, the Public Protector's report, and the SAPS disciplinary findings. This analysis revealed material and unexplained contradictions that demand scrutiny. ActionSA argues that the SAPS disciplinary findings fundamentally depart from the conclusions reached by both IPID and the Public Protector regarding the Phala Phala investigation, particularly concerning whether the disciplinary process properly evaluated the evidence and applied the SAPS disciplinary regulations.
ActionSA has identified several significant contradictions that necessitate judicial intervention. Regarding the duty to report and register a criminal case, while IPID and the Public Protector found that Major-General Rhoode failed in his statutory obligations, the disciplinary process concluded that there was no blameworthiness. In terms of the unofficial investigation, the Public Protector found that General Rhoode directed an investigation without a registered case; however , the disciplinary findings accepted explanations from the implicated officers that contradicted these findings.
Regarding a trip to Namibia, IPID confirmed that General Rhoode provided inconsistent accounts, yet the disciplinary findings accepted his version of events. Furthermore, despite IPID concluding that Brigadier Hanekom failed to ensure that a serious criminal offence was properly registered and dealt with through ordinary channels, the disciplinary process reached a contrary conclusion.
ActionSA also highlights that the disciplinary process failed to engage with the majority of misconduct identified by IPID, ignored key evidence that was allegedly obtained under duress, and produced a record of decision that lacks any indication of a meaningful disciplinary process or analysis of competing evidence.
Parliamentary actions and constitutional accountability
Beyond legal action, ActionSA is requesting that the complete disciplinary record be placed before Parliament's Section 89 Committee as evidence related to the President's conduct. They further request that both the IPID head and the chairperson of the SAPS disciplinary proceedings appear before the committee to explain how such contradictory conclusions were reached.
Additionally, parliamentary questions will be submitted to the Acting Minister of Police regarding disciplinary process, the evidence considered, and whether the National Commissioner accepted the discrepancies between SAPS findings and those of IPID. ActionSA asserts that South Africa deserves to know the full truth and remains committed to utilising both parliamentary and legal mechanisms to ensure public office remains subject to constitutional accountability.