Open Secrets to Face Armoured Vehicle Company in Court

Open Secrets is to appear in the Western Cape High Court on 27 November before Judge Nathan Erasmus in a case brought by Integrated Convoy Protection, a South African armoured vehicle manufacturer.

GroundUp reported on Monday that Open Secrets, an organisation that conducts investigations into economic crimes and human rights abuses, was issued with a pre-publication gag order.

GroundUp has not seen the court order, but we understand that it prevents Open Secrets from publishing its investigation or disclosing the name of the applicant in the case. Open Secrets may not even disclose the judge and court that issued the gag order.

But according to open source information obtained by GroundUp, Open Secrets will appear in court in a case brought by Integrated Convoy Protection.

We cannot confirm if this is the same company that gagged Open Secrets. Nor can we confirm if that gag order took place in the Western Cape High Court.

Integrated Convoy Protection, which also trades under the name Reva Armoured Personnel Carriers, produces and exports armoured vehicles for private security and military use to countries around the world.

Vehicles manufactured by the company have reportedly been deployed in Iraq, the UAE, Yemen, Somalia, Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Thailand, and South Africa.

The company, based in Pretoria, last year bid on a tender to supply armoured vehicles to Armscor to be used by the South African National Defence Force to patrol the country’s borders.

Integrated Convoy Protection has two companies registered with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). Integrated Convoy Protection Pty Ltd’s directors are Nadine Rynners (Rorich) and Burger Johannes Vorster. Rynners is also a director of Integrated Convoy Protection SA Reva Pty Ltd, along with Phillipus Johannes Marx, who was also once a director of the other company.

Investigative journalism outlet AmaBhungane has applied to join the gag order case as an Amicus curiae (friend of the court). (However, we cannot confirm if this is the same case that will be heard on 27 November.)

In line with Section 1.8 of the Press Code, we have not sought comment from the parties involved in the case on 27 November. The clause compels us to seek comment from those who are the “subject of critical reportage”. Importantly, though, there is an exception for when we “might be prevented from reporting”. We believe that if we had gone to the parties to the court case for comment, there would be a substantial risk that at least one of them would have gone to court to try to prevent us from running this article. Therefore, we have not sought comment from them.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.