The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) has found senior members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) attached to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s protection unit committed many acts of misconduct in their handling of the 2020 theft at the president’s Phala Phala farm.
The findings are contained in a “negative recommendation report” compiled under Section 30 of the Ipid Act after a complaint by African Transformation Movement leader Vuyolethu Zungula.
The investigation focused on the conduct of Maj-Gen Wally Rhoode, head of the presidential protection unit, and Const HH Rekhoto rather than the underlying criminal case of theft.
The Phala Phala matter stems from a burglary at Ramaphosa’s private game farm near Bela-Bela, Limpopo, on February 9 2020 during which an undetermined amount of foreign currency was stolen.
Allegations initially placed the figure at around $4m (R65.8m), while Ramaphosa has maintained about $580,000 (R9.5m), derived from the sale of game, was taken.
The incident became public in June 2022 when Arthur Fraser, former State Security Agency head, laid criminal charges against Ramaphosa, accusing him of concealing the crime, and kidnapping and bribery linked to the handling of suspects.
While the kidnapping case was later withdrawn, Ipid noted witnesses appeared apprehensive and denied prior interactions with investigators
The allegations triggered investigations, including probes by the public protector, parliament and law enforcement agencies, and led to a section 89 parliamentary process that ultimately did not result in impeachment.
Central to the controversy were claims the theft was not reported through official police channels and an informal investigation was conducted instead. Ramaphosa has stated he reported the matter to the head of his protection unit and has denied any criminal wrongdoing.
Ipid has found Rhoode failed to register a case of housebreaking and theft after being informed of the incident by the president, and did not report the matter to the national police commissioner as required by law. The report states this constituted a contravention of the SAPS Act, which obliges officers to report prescribed offences to their commanding officers.
Instead of following formal procedures, the report concludes members of the presidential protection unit conducted an unauthorised investigation into the theft. This included the unlawful apprehension and interrogation of suspects, and alleged kidnapping incidents linked to the Joseph family in Bela-Bela. While the kidnapping case was later withdrawn, Ipid noted witnesses appeared apprehensive and denied prior interactions with investigators.
The investigation further found state resources were improperly used to pursue what Ipid described as the president’s private financial interests. Police personnel, vehicles and travel budgets were deployed without a registered case and under false pretences. Travel records show trips to Cape Town and Namibia were justified as official duties, despite being linked to the tracking of suspects.
Ipid also identified falsification of official documentation, including itineraries and travel claims, to conceal the true purpose of the operations. In several instances, the president’s name was invoked to avoid scrutiny. The report further records instances of “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”, including the use of long-distance travel for personnel when local resources were available.
ActionSA, which secured and published the report after a protracted legal process, has argued the findings expose serious failures of accountability
The report corroborated Rhoode travelled to Namibia under the pretext of protection duties, where South African officials reportedly engaged with Namibian counterparts in relation to the matter. It also noted Rhoode failed to fully cooperate with Ipid investigators, including not responding to questions regarding the interrogation of suspects and whether their constitutional rights were observed.
Rekhoto was found to have participated in surveillance and investigative activities outside his mandate and to have provided inconsistent accounts regarding the purpose of his deployment to Cape Town. Ipid concluded he failed to advise that the matter should be formally reported and investigated through proper SAPS channels.
Based on the findings, Ipid has recommended disciplinary action be instituted against both officers. The report cited many breaches of SAPS disciplinary regulations, including:
- failure to comply with legal obligations;
- improper conduct;
- financial mismanagement; and
- the falsification of records.
ActionSA, which secured and published the report after a protracted legal process, has argued the findings expose serious failures of accountability. The party said the report shows members of the presidential protection unit “involved themselves in an unlawful investigation without opening a docket” and falsified documents to fund the operation through SAPS resources.
The party has called for urgent parliamentary scrutiny, stating despite the report being completed in 2023, those implicated remain in their positions without disciplinary consequences. It has written to parliamentary committees to request an inquiry into the failure to act on Ipid’s recommendations.
Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.