The eight notorious bodyguards of deputy president Paul Mashatile displayed stunning “impunity” and shocking disregard for due process during their almost two-year long disciplinary hearing, including unexplained no-shows and calling in sick without medical certificates.
Dubbed the N1 eight, the members of Mashatile’s presidential security detail were also allowed to “Stalingrad” their hearing, often changing their representatives from the SAPS Presidential Protection Services and their respective police unions, Sapu and Popcru.
The controversy surrounding the N1 eight resurfaced this week after it emerged that they had been quietly acquitted of several disciplinary charges by SAPS on April 7, in what police sources call a “rigged and badly managed process” that started in July 2023.
Mashatile’s bodyguards caused shock waves in 2023 when they were captured on video assaulting civilians who turned out to be members of the SANDF on the N1 in Johannesburg, including hitting them with the butts of firearms, before speeding off and leaving one of the victims unconscious.
The outcome of this raises serious questions about the credibility, transparency and fairness of SAPS’ internal accountability mechanisms — Ian Cameron, chair of parliament’s police portfolio committee
But they walked out unscathed from their hearing on disciplinary charges (DC) last month, after the chair, Brig Thulani Shabalala of Protection and Security Services, ruled that the shocking assault video was inadmissible as evidence following a Sapu argument.
This was even though the Randburg magistrate's court ruled in May last year that the video would be used as admissible evidence in the criminal trial against the N1 eight, which is due start on June 10.
The bodyguards are facing 12 criminal charges, including assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, malicious damage to property and reckless driving.
The N1 eight DC cost taxpayers more than R231,000 including flights, meals, accommodation and daily allowances of between R3,000 and R5,600 each for the DC chair and employer representative, respectively.
The report into their DC has been kept under wraps for a month with no public communication from SAPS, but the Sunday Times can today reveal that the hearing was poorly managed by police top brass.
Their DC charges included contravening the SAPS code of conduct and of that of the public service, malicious damage to property of a serious nature and bringing the SAPS into disrepute.
Three of the accused claimed to be sick without submitting medical certificates on hearing dates between July and October 2024, including taking family responsibility leave.
All eight snubbed their DC hearing dates on two occasions without explanation between October 21 and October 29 2024, with Shabalala suspending them with immediate effect.
When they returned to the DC hearing on January 2025, with new representatives from Sapu, the N1 eight “alleged that they were misled” by their previous representatives and their suspension was lifted.
During the hearing that took place between February 17 and 19 this year, Sapu argued that the widely-condemned N1 video “cannot be utilized [as evidence] because there are possibilities of tampering” and the “author of the video was unknown”.
The police officer’s union further argued that the bodyguards’ employer, SAPS, “could not prove the authenticity of the video and failed to own the video footage,” leading to Shabalala ruling in favour of the N1 eight.
DA MP and chair of parliament’s police portfolio committee, Ian Cameron, has slammed the SAPS' handling of the case.
“What’s funny about that is the court has already said that [the video] is admissible as evidence. It’s funny that they speak about respecting due process but they themselves are not respecting due process.
“On May 7 2024 the court ruled that the video is real evidence and that there’s no need to prove originality, and that it’s relevant and admissible, so questioning the authenticity of it is baseless,” said Cameron.
He added that he had written to police minister Senzo Mchunu seeking answers on the outcome of the DC.
“The outcome of this raises serious questions about the credibility, transparency and fairness of SAPS’ internal accountability mechanisms.
“I also question the role of Maj-Gen Wally Rhoode, the commander of the Presidential Protection Services. How did he manage the incident, how was he ensuring proper oversight, before and after it occurred? It’s just too often and astounding that presidential protection services get away with things ... they just act with impunity.”
Cameron also questioned why the SAPS VIP protection service was running its own DC processes.
“It just seems like it’s a closed unit, they do their own thing. It should have been [chaired] by someone from a completely unrelated unit of the SAPS ... a general. It’s such a high-profile, high-pressure matter that it should be handled by relevant higher authority. And there was no reason for it to have dragged on this long. I know of members who commit minor offences and they are sacked overnight. It seems like it was not actively managed by the management of SAPS.”
Mchunu’s spokesperson, Kamogelo Mogotsi said the minister was due to be briefed by Masemola on the DC matter after studying the DC report.
Athlenda Mathe, who speaks for national police commissioner Fanie Masemola, said they were studying the DC ruling.
“The national commissioner is studying the chair of the disciplinary hearing’s report and thereafter he will consult legal services,” she said.
For his part, Rhoode confirmed signing off on some of the charges against the N1 eight but declined to comment on the matter.
“He can ask questions, he must ask questions, he’s got a right to it,” said Rhoode in response to Cameron’s criticism of him.
“I put the hearing together [but] sorry, I can’t speak to the newspaper.”
Mashatile’s spokesperson, Keith Khoza, also declined to comment, saying it was a SAPS affair.
Other police sources familiar with the matter indicated that Rhoode brushed aside concerns raised with him on the management of the N1 eight case.
“The issue is the competence and the management of that office, this place is in shambles.”
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.