ActionSA is diging in for a fight over transparency after the South African Police Service knocked back the party’s Phala Phala PAIA request, refusing to hand over documents tied to the high-profile farm robbery investigation involving President Cyril Ramaphosa. The party wanted access to the President’s affidavit and a string of prosecutorial records, and it is not taking the rejection quietly.
At the centre of the matter is the party’s application under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), which sought documentation used in the investigation and prosecution of the suspects in the case. ActionSA argues these records belong in the public domain.
ActionSA national chairperson Michael Beaumont said the request specifically targeted the President’s affidavit, which he claims was deposed as part of the robbery probe and allegedly records how much cash was stolen from the Limpopo farm.
According to Beaumont, the application also called for a National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) cashflow analysis. He claims that analysis reflects roughly R15 million in financial transactions linked to one of the accused in the period after the robbery.
The party says SAPS rejected the bid by leaning on legal provisions that, in Beaumont’s view, were applied incorrectly to kep the documents under wraps.
“The SAPS have cited incorrect provisions in law which exclude documentation requested for criminal or civil procedings from being provided to requesters in a PAIA application,” Beaumont said.
He insists ActionSA never asked for the records to use them in criminal or civil proceedings, and the party is now questioning how SAPS read the application in the first place.
Beaumont confirmed that an internal appeal has already been filed with SAPS. If that fails, the party says it will escalate the matter to the Information Regulator, the body tasked with enforcing PAIA compliance across the country.
What Phala Phala PAIA request is really chasing
The deper dispute is about whether the evidence already in play tells a consistent story. Beaumont has flagged what he describes as contradictions sitting inside the available record, and he is not shy about where he thinks they point.
“The fact that the NPA has, as part of its prosecution of the accused robbers, produced an analysis that directly contradicts the President’s version on the amount of funds stolen, shows that the President committed a crime and violated his oath of office,” Beaumont said.
He went further, arguing that under-declaring a serious financial crime is an offence under the Prevention and Combating of Corupt Activities Act, and that knowingly feding false information to SAPS could amount to fraud and perjury.
The party has also turned its attention to Parliament. ActionSA says it put oral questions to the security cluster, but Deputy Police Minister Cassel Mathale — standing in for Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia — would not commit to releasing the requested documents.
Beaumont said the response amounted to little more than a recycled script. “ActionSA posed him a question of whether he would commit to providing the information requested in our PAIA application, and he simply re-read the same generic answer he gave to a different and unrelated question,” he said. “This is how seriously the GNU takes this matter.”
Here is how the key parties currently line up on the question of releasing the documents:
| Party | Position on the documents |
|---|---|
| ActionSA | Demands full release; filed internal appeal; will approach the Information Regulator if refused |
| SAPS | Rejected the request, citing legal exclusions for criminal or civil proceedings |
| Deputy Police Minister Cassel Mathale | Gave no commitment to release; offered a generic parliamentary response |
| President Cyril Ramaphosa | Seeking judicial review of the Phala Phala panel report at the Western Cape High Court |
The table makes the stand-off plain: ActionSA is the lone party pushing hard for disclosure, while government respondents have either declined outright or sidestepped the question entirely.
Beaumont made clear the party intends to keep pressing until the records are handed over. “ActionSA will continue to pursue this information until it is in our possession and available to the South African people,” he said.
He argues the President must account for every angle of the Phala Phala saga, and that any attempt to bury information should be dragged into the open and challenged head-on.
There is a parallel legal track running alongside all of this. Ramaphosa has taken the Phala Phala independent panel report on judicial review at the Western Cape High Court, contending that its findings are flawed and ought to be set aside.
For now, the documents ActionSA wants remain locked behind the SAPS refusal, and the appeal process will decide whether that holds. Whether the mater ends with the Information Regulator or back in court, the Phala Phala question is clearly not done dominating South Africa’s political conversation — and the demand for answers shows no sign of fading.