Johannesburg - The transport department has been accused of trying to sneak a regulation into law which will see the non-payment of e-tolls treated as a traffic violation.
This as the public has only until next Wednesday, 6 January, to comment on gazetted amendments to the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto) Act, which were published by the department on 7 December.
Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance chairman Wayne Duvenage on Monday questioned the timing of the gazette during the holiday period, and criticised the “roughshod” manner in which the process had been approached.
Duvenage said although the law required the public to be given 30 days to respond, the department should have allowed more time.
“It’s typical of the government,” he said. “Even if they said we had to release it on the 7th, they should’ve given two months to respond. They should’ve said that because it’s over the holiday, we want to give the public enough chance to respond. It smacks of underhanded tactics,”
Outa charged that the Gazette sought to amend the Aarto Act in an attempt to make it easier to include e-toll infringements into the adjudication process by the Road Traffic Infringement Agency.
Duvenage said the modification to the infringement notice process through the use of a new form was flawed in many respects.
“It’s designed to include multiple infringement entries being included onto a single page, seemingly to assist the South African National Roads Agency Limited in trying to treat the non-payment of e-tolls as a traffic violation. By doing so, the entire infringement notification process becomes impractical and almost in-administrable,” said Duvenage.
This would make it more difficult for traffic police to manage the traffic fines process, he added.
“This new form is flawed in that it does not provide proof that the driver’s vehicle was at the scene of the incident noted, as there is no photograph provided for each and every infringement listed.
“There is also an absence of a unique reference number or magisterial district listed for each incident, which is required for dispute resolution purposes,” he said.
“This type of behaviour further alienates the public from the state. That’s the type of stuff that bites them in the back later on. They're doing themselves and the public a disservice.”
He encouraged the public to submit their comments in time.
PULLING A FAST ONE
Also criticising the amendment was Justice Project South Africa's Howard Dembovsky, who said the government was “trying to pull a fast one”.
He said: “In our view, the form is going to be a non-starter. First you have to change the Aarto Act. That amendment is not contained in the Aarto amendment bill. They will have to redraft that before you put it before Parliament again,” he explained. He said the public generally did not take notice of government gazettes.
The Department of Transport had not responded to our request for comment at the time of publication.