The political party ActionSA has announced it is proceeding with a high court challenge to force the release of a secret police watchdog report into the conduct of Presidential Protection Unit (PPU) members during the 2020 Phala Phala farm robbery.
The scandal, which involved the theft of US $580,000 in cash from the sofa of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Limpopo farm, has been dogged by allegations of a cover-up. ActionSA contends that the decision by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) to classify its investigation report as “top secret” is unlawful and denies the public accountability.
Party chairperson Michael Beaumont, in an interview, stated that ActionSA will argue in court that IPID’s justifications for secrecy are irrational and that the policy enabling such classification is itself unconstitutional.
“We want transparency. We want accountability,” Beaumont said. “These are two things that have been kept from the South African people throughout this entire Phala Phala scandal.”
The controversy centres on the PPU members’ actions following the robbery. President Ramaphosa has stated he instructed the head of his protection unit to report the theft to police, but no independent police docket was opened initially. IPID later investigated whether the PPU officers, who are also police officers, failed in their legal duty to report the crime.
According to Beaumont, IPID classified its final report using the Minimum Information Security Standards (MISS) policy, citing two grounds: that disclosure might cause “disruption” between government institutions, or that it could interfere with an ongoing investigation.
Beaumont dismissed both reasons as “astonishing” and “tenuous,” especially given that the robbery occurred nearly six years ago with little visible investigative progress.
“Our concern has been a cover-up,” Beaumont said. He alleged the unit members “investigated that crime… with our concern being that they were protecting the president about the $580,000 he had stuffed in his couch rather than independently investigating a crime of robbery.”
He further argued that the public has a right to know if the officers acted on “political instructions” or operated “as a law unto themselves.”
Police Minister Bheki Cele has previously stated the IPID report exonerated the officers, but Beaumont countered that without seeing the document, the public cannot verify this claim. He noted that the IPID probe was prompted by a report from the Public Protector, which found the PPU members had acted outside their legal mandate by investigating without opening a formal case docket—an act it deemed illegal.
ActionSA’s planned legal challenge will be three-pronged: to contest the rationality of the report’s classification, to seek a court order for its release, and to challenge the constitutionality of the MISS policy itself.
Beaumont warned that the policy, which allows a wide range of government officials to classify documents as secret, undermines democratic principles. “The conditions for them to do so are so wide-ranging that there is no ability to hold accountable those officials,” he said.
He acknowledged that litigation could take years, potentially stretching beyond the current administration, but stressed the case was about setting a precedent for future transparency. “We need to make sure… precedent is being set in our country that ensures that these kind of things can’t continue to happen,” Beaumont stated.
The party positions itself as a driving force for accountability, especially within a Parliament now dominated by the Government of National Unity (GNU). “This is the last beachhead for anyone who’s looking for accountability in the Phala Phala matter,” Beaumont claimed, referencing other official investigations into the affair that ActionSA views as inadequate.
IPID has not yet publicly responded to the planned legal action.