The South African Police Service (SAPS) has told Parliament that it adhered to all recommendations when deciding to clear senior officers implicated in the investigation into the theft at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm.
The explanation was given on Wednesday during a tense meeting of Parliament’s Police Portfolio Committee, where Members of Parliament questioned SAPS over its decision to exonerate officers despite findings that they had acted unlawfully after the 2020 farm burglary.
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) had recommended disciplinary action against Major General Wally Rhoode, head of the Presidential Protection Service (PPS), and several other officers for breaching SAPS regulations.
IPID Found Rhoode Misused State Resources
According to the IPID report, Rhoode failed to report the crime through proper channels and made improper use of state resources during the investigation into the theft.
He also faced allegations relating to the unlawful apprehension of suspects connected to the incident.
Despite these findings, SAPS concluded that the officers were not guilty of misconduct, prompting criticism from MPs who sought clarity on how the decision was reached.
SAPS Defends Decision Before Parliament
SAPS Human Resources head General Lineo Nkhuoa told the committee that the police had acted in accordance with all recommendations made by both IPID and the Public Protector.
“IPID made one recommendation that steps must be instituted against employees, and we can confirm that the IPID recommendation was also complied with.”
Nkhuoa maintained that the disciplinary processes were followed, even though they ultimately resulted in the officers being cleared.
MPs Question Whether Senior Officers Receive Special Treatment
Democratic Alliance MP Dianne Kohler Barnard challenged SAPS on whether members of the Presidential Protection Service are subject to the same disciplinary procedures and timelines as all other police officers.
“Can the SAPS please clarify whether members attached to the Presidential Protection Services are subject to the same disciplinary standards procedures and timelines applicable to their members, because the general public don’t, they are subject to the same.”
Her remarks reflected broader concerns among committee members that senior officials may be treated differently within the police service.
[Constitutional Court To Hear Nandipha Magudumana Extradition Challenge]
Following the heated exchange, SAPS asked for a further discussion to be held in person rather than on a virtual platform.
The additional meeting is expected to provide MPs with another opportunity to interrogate the police service over its handling of the Phala Phala disciplinary process.
