Thank you to those who participated in our polls on social media regarding your knowledge on AARTO and whether you want it to be implemented nationally in June 2020. Below are screen captures of the results of our Facebook and Twitter polls, together with one run by Pigspotter, who has a large follower base.
While some may say that those who participated represent a fraction of a percent of the driver population (which is 100% correct), there is a good reason for this.
You see, just like was the case with a survey conducted by the RTIA in 2017, the questions we asked were intentionally loaded. The only difference is that it is easier not to participate on social media than when you are ambushed a licensing department, while standing in a queue.
Why do we say the questions were loaded? Well, because the normal human reaction to a question that asks if you know EVERYTHING there is to know is to not want to look ignorant – or to put it bluntly – stupid.
The loaded nature of the second part of the question plays to people’s sense of reasonableness. After all, what reasonable and law-abiding motorist would not want a points-demerit system to finally come into play in South Africa, when it has been promised for so long? The first “victims” of it would be minibus taxi drivers, right?
It was not our intention to dupe anyone, just to conduct a social experiment. With that said, it seems a tad unlikely that Mr Monde Mkalipi of the RTIA was being truthful when he said “most South Africans want the AARTO Act” when the sample results below appear to indicate the exact opposite.
To be fair, no-one can make a decision either way unless they do know EVERYTHING there is to know about the AARTO Act (or anything else for that matter).
It has been our observation over more than a decade that motorists know very little about the prosecution instruments relating to road traffic offences, and even less about the AARTO Act. This is simply NOT their fault.
That said, it is our stance that the RTIA, being the government enterprise tasked with educating motorists on the AARTO Act should have made some progress in the eleven and a half years the AARTO Act has been in force in Tshwane and Johannesburg. It is apparent that it has made little, if any at all.
IF the AARTO Act does come into force nationally in June 2020, motorists are in for a nasty surprise and many who regard them as being “law-abiding citizens” (because they pay their traffic fines) will find their driving licenses being suspended quite quickly. If/when that happens, there will be an outcry, but it will be too late to do anything about it.
Please go and have a look at https://aarto.co.za so that you understand the full implications of the AARTO Act. After that, if the small percentage of you who say you know everything there is to know and want it to come into force in June still feel that way, then fine, that is your prerogative.
Facebook poll – run over 48 hours.
Twitter poll – run over 24 hours
Pigspotter’s Twitter poll – run over 24 hours
The RTIA’s 2017 survey
Below is the survey the Road Traffic Infringement Agency conducted in 2017. As you will see if you click on this link, this is the only “research paper” available on the RTIA’s website.
Road Traffic Infringement Agency company secretary Mcedisi Bilikwana (left) and registrar Japh Chuwe (right). Photo: Keitumetse Maako
“The recently amended Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act is merely meant to promote road safety and nothing else, contrary to reports which allege it would bully motorists into paying their e-toll bills”.
So said the Road traffic Infringement Agency’s (RTIA’s) Registrar, Japhtha (Japh) Chuwe at a media briefing held by the National Press Club in Pretoria, on 19 September 2019.
He reportedly went on to say that the “new” law was not intended for the alleged purpose and that “this misleading information is disingenuous.”
To lend weight to his musings, Chuwe referred to the publication for comment of draft amended regulations to the AARTO Regulations, published in Government Gazette 39482 of 7 December 2015. As he correctly pointed out, therein it was proposed that the single demerit-point applicable to drivers of vehicles for which a Professional Driving Permit (PrDP) is required be removed, but the R500 penalty remain.
That amendment has still not been enacted, almost four years after it was published for public comment.
It is a widely acknowledged fact that all good propaganda has a foundation in truth. Get a charming, eloquent individual to convey that propaganda, and you can almost certainly convince many people that the world is flat.
There’s no denying that Chuwe is a charming and eloquent individual. He comes across as extremely knowledgeable and genuine, and is an exceptionally talented spin doctor.
However, what Mr Chuwe fails to mention is that the identical Government Gazette also proposed a new AARTO infringement notice form.
The form that proves that the AARTO Act IS about enforcing e-tolls compliance
Called the AARTO 03e “infringement notice [in respect of] multiple camera or electronically captured infringements”, this form seeks to incorporate twenty-five such infringements on a single infringement notice, as opposed to one infringement per notice number. There are many flaws with this ill-conceived idea. Not least of these is that if one wishes to make a representation or nominate a driver for a single infringement, there is no way to do so.
AARTO 03e infringement notice [in respect of] multiple camera or electronically captured infringements.
The relative newcomers to the block in respect of the AARTO Act, OUTA, who have not only publicly stated their intention to challenge the AARTO Amendment Act, but also had quite a lot to say about the timing of that Gazette at that time, have failed to counter Chuwe’s patently untruthful allegations.
That being what it may, one must ask just who is being “disingenuous”. Is it those who have said that AARTO and e-tolls go hand in hand, or is it Mr Chuwe?
The future of e-tolls
On 6 July 2019, President Ramaphosa announced that he had mandated the Minister of Transport Fikile Mbalula working with Finance Minister Tito Mboweni and Gauteng Premier David Makhura to submit to Cabinet a solution to the impasse around e-tolling on Gauteng freeways, to bring an end to the e-tolls catastrophe. “The President has called on the Ministers and Premier to table proposals to Cabinet by the end of August 2019,” the statement read.
On Wednesday 28 August, Mbalulamet with OUTA and the AA, only for the SA Government news service to announce on Saturday 31 August that the so-called “deadline” had been extended “to allow for thorough consultation with organs of civil society, labour and business”.
Considering the initial e-tolls solution deadline set by the President, it’s hard not to wonder Minister Mbalula waited until the eleventh hour to commence consultation with some organs of civil society, and then a further six weeks after it to meet with others, business and labour. What’s more, it’s hard not to wonder what may have possibly changed in the stance of organs of civil society, labour and business since Gauteng Premier, David Makhura convened his so-called “e-tolls review panel” more than five years ago, in 2014.
According to MoneyWeb, President Ramaphosa is expected to make an announcement in respect of the commencement of the AARTO Amendment Act on Saturday 5 October 2019.
“Joanne” asks: “I have a quick question. Is it illegal to warn people on a community WhatsApp group of a road block where you are informed of and asked to pay outstanding traffic fines?”
While the question may be “quick”, its answer is a little more complex and therefore has to be comprehensive. It must also be noted that this answer is strictly confined to warning people of roadblocks established for the purpose of collecting traffic fine revenues. Of course, the short answer is: “no, it is notillegal to warn people of the existence of roadblocks in certain circumstances“. But please do read on for further clarity.
What the law says
In terms of the law, there is no definitive prohibition in respect of warning others of the existence of law enforcement operations of any kind. This includes, but is not limited to roadblocks. However, where such an operation is being conducted with a specific purpose in mind (e.g. to apprehend a dangerous criminal), warning the persons who are sought in such operations could be construed to constitute defeating the ends of justice.
That said, in the narrow context of what Joanne’s question appears to be asking, it is unlikely that a Court would accept any allegations of defeating the ends of justice. There are numerous reasons for this, not least of which is that our Courts have previously held that flashing one’s lights to warn oncoming motorists of the existence of a speed trap, for example, does not constitute this crime.
The reason is simple. To be guilty of defeating the ends of justice, the person flashing their lights would have to have a reasonable suspicion that an oncoming vehicle is exceeding the speed limit, or is about to exceed the speed limit. (see: S v Perera [1978 3 SA 523 (T)])
Obviously, there is a difference between flashing one’s lights and using social media to reveal the locations of law enforcement operations and as yet, no legislation has been drafted, or even proposed, to deal with this phenomenon.
While it may be true that warning people of the existence of roadblocks established for the purpose of crime detection and prevention, detecting unroadworthy vehicles, etc. may be shoehorned into the definition of defeating the ends of justice, the same is not true of doing so in respect of roadblocks established with the objective to collect fine revenues, through means of coercion.
What makes such coercion possible is ordinary people’s ignorance of the law. This in turn makes them vulnerable to such practices. After all, what reasonable person would reasonably conclude that a law enforcement official would deliberately engage in unlawful practices?
Both, the Criminal Procedure Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act have inbuilt, definitive mechanisms to deal with offenders who fail to act in respect of their traffic fines.
The Criminal Procedure Act
In the case of the Criminal Procedure Act, these mechanisms include a warrant of arrest. One is issued should the alleged offender fail to appear in Court, once he or she has been summoned to do so, and fails to appear in Court or otherwise dispose of the matter prior to the trial date.
Where a warrant of arrest has been issued, peace officers are under strict instruction to arrest the person cited in that warrant and are immunised from claims of unlawful arrest. Although such warrants may be executed at a roadblock, the warrant itself does not limit its execution to roadblocks. In fact, the warrant of arrest instructs the peace officer to immediately proceed to arrest the person in respect of whom it has been issued, and bring him or her before the Court that issued the warrant of arrest.
In the case of a road traffic offence for which an admission of guilt fine may be paid, no warrant of arrest may be issued prior to the Court date. Furthermore, no person can be forced to pay a traffic fine in the absence of a Court convicting that person of the offence he or she is alleged to have committed.
According to Section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the payment of an admission of guilt fine that appears on a summons issued in terms of Section 54 or a written notice issued in terms of Section 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act, shall result in a criminal conviction being recorded in the criminal records book for admissions of guilt, held at the Magistrates’ Court with jurisdiction.
Although this provision may sound scary, in practical application, criminal records that reflect on the South African Police Service (SAPS) Criminal Records Centre (CRC) database require that a docket is registered and the fingerprints of the convicted person are taken prior to such recordal. In the case of traffic fines, this rarely (if ever) happens unless that person has been arrested prior to their trial and makes payment of an admission of guilt fine after their fingerprints have been taken*.
[* This has repeatedly been confirmed in litigation and judgments before the High Court.]
The AARTO Act
The AARTO Act differs considerably from the Criminal Procedure Act inasmuch as it does not include a warrant of arrest. In fact, it does not include a summons or written notification to appear in Court, unless (in its current form*), the alleged infringer elects to be tried in Court. Even where an alleged infringer does elect to be tried in Court, and subsequently fails to appear in Court, a warrant of arrest may not be issued.
Instead, the AARTO Act employs a series of administrative actions which are designed to effectively force the payment of traffic fines. Amongst these coercive measures is the enforcement order, which has the effect of blocking licensing transactions – but only insofar as things such as licence discs being refused – not the payment of licensing fees being similarly disallowed.
The existence of one or more enforcement orders blocks the issuing of a driving licence, professional driving permit and licence disk.
[* The AARTO Amendment Act, No. 4 of 2019 removes the right of an alleged infringer to elect to be tried in Court. It is not yet in force.]
Roadblocks and so-called “roadside checks”
It is no secret that traffic law enforcement authorities regularly set up roadblocks, with the primary purpose of collecting what they regard to be their dues in respect of traffic fines revenues.
Although they regularly call such roadblocks “roadside checks” in order to circumvent Section 13(8) of the SAPS Act, coupled with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”) in respect of freedom of movement and the prohibition of arbitrary searches, blocking a road constitutes a roadblock and not a so-called “roadside check”.
Roadblocks are called “roadblocks” because they BLOCK the road – in one direction or both directions! (doh!)
This is so, even if Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) is used to identify those motorists who have outstanding traffic fines.
Section 3I (three, capital i) of the National Road Traffic Act empowers any traffic officer to stop any motorist without the need to establish any “probable cause”. It has been suggested by many that this provision is unconstitutional. To an extent, JPSA agrees, more especially when it is used to establish so-called “roadside checks” for reasons other than establishing the fitness of the driver and/or the vehicle they are operating.
ANPR cameras are used to identify vehicles with outstanding traffic fines, etc.
What the Constitution says
Section 35(3) of the Bill of Rights in terms of the Constitution provides numerous rights to all accused persons. These persons do not have to be arrested and/or detained in order for these constitutional rights to apply. Section 35(3)(h) specifically provides: “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings”.
A traffic fine constitutes an allegation of wrongdoing. From the reading of Section 35(3) of the Constitution, it is apparent that anyone who stands accused of committing a road traffic offence or in infringement is an accused person. Not so say law enforcement authorities, State Owned Enterprises and Agencies and politicians.
For reasons best known to them, law enforcement authorities, State Owned Enterprises and Agencies and politicians have come to the conclusion that Section 35(3) of the Constitution does not apply to those who stand accused of road traffic infringements and offences. Some have even gone so far as to say that the mere fact that a traffic officer has issued a notice constitutes prima facie evidence that the person cited in that notice is guilty of the offence or infringement*. Others have said that because the AARTO Act is administrative in nature, a person in respect of whom an infringement notice is issued is not an accused person “because no term of imprisonment” is contemplated as one of the punishments the AARTO Act provides for.
[* See the answering affidavits of the Minister of Transport and the Road Traffic Infringement Agency.]
These seemingly absurd allegations will be tested in the Pretoria High Court during the proceedings in HD Dembovsky v The Minister of Transport and 16 Others (Case Number 24245/2018) during February 2020, the full pleadings of which can be found here.
Coercing payment of traffic fines at roadblocks
There is no law that permits traffic authorities to coerce the payment of traffic fines at roadblocks – or anywhere else for that matter. While it may be true that no other law expressly forbids it, it is untrue to say that it is not forbidden. Section 2 of the Constitution provides “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.” (emphasis added).
While many traffic law enforcement authorities claim that they do not attempt to coerce (force) payment of traffic fines, little could be further from the truth. There is nothing unlawful about informing motorists that they have outstanding traffic fines. It is however unlawful to attempt to coerce payment, through actions and/or threats.
Retaining a person’s driving licence until they pay, or the traffic officer abandons trying to force him or her to pay is tantamount to unlawful seizure – without a warrant or “probable cause” that the driving licence card in question is a counterfeit document.
Preventing a person from leaving the site is tantamount to unlawful or false arrest because that person’s right to freedom of movement is infringed.
Telling a person that he or she faces arrest if he does not pay, in the absence of a valid warrant of arrest, is tantamount to extortion because it constitutes a threat designed to extract monies.
Demands for payment in respect of any traffic fines in respect of which a warrant of arrest is not present are all, strictly unlawful and should be treated with the contempt they deserve. While a person in respect of whom may pay an admission of guilt fine in respect of both, the charge of contempt of court and the underlying original offence with which they were charged, there is nothing in law that provides that he or she must do so.
If any person wishes to admit guilt by paying a traffic fine, he or she is fully entitled to do so, however, he or she may not be forced to do so.
Note what the RTIA’s own signwriting says: “Paying traffic fines made easy inside”. The RTIA CLAIMS that this bus is used to EDUCATE motorists in respect of ROAD SAFETY and their RIGHTS in terms of the AARTO Act.
Informing people of the whereabouts of roadblocks designed to coerce payment of traffic fines
So now that a background to the legalities of traffic fines and how they should be dealt with has been provided, finally we get to the issue of people informing others of the whereabouts of roadblocks designed to coerce payment of traffic fines through social media.
By design, roadblocks of any kind usually interrupt the natural flow of traffic. In some instances, this interruption can be mild, whilst in others, they can be significant and even costly to those caught up in them. These effects can range from being slightly delayed in one’s journey, to missing flights that have been paid for and cannot be rescheduled or refunded, and everything in between.
When those who use social media to inform others of such operations, it is not usually their intention to assist law-breakers to evade the long arm of the law. On the contrary, it is usually their intention to assist others to avoid the inconvenience caused by such operations. After all, these operations affect everyone caught up in them, even if such a person has no traffic fines and nothing to fear from law enforcement operations.
In fact, informing people of the whereabouts of roadblocks designed to coerce payment of traffic fines, whether it be via social media or any other means, can be viewed as constituting a valuable public service. This is because in most instances, it is law enforcement officials that are acting unlawfully. Unlawful behaviour should never be condoned, even if it occurs in the name of “law enforcement”.
What traffic law enforcement officials need to come to realise
Traffic law enforcement officials, and law enforcement officials in general need to come to realise that the end does not justify the means. Laws exist for a reason and it is the constitutional duty of every law enforcement official to uphold both, the law and the Constitution.
Breaking the law and infringing on people’s constitutional rights is contrary to the constitutional mandate imposed on law enforcement officials. If their expectation is for ordinary people to respect them, they should refrain from acting outside of the framework of the law and the Constitution. When they don’t refrain from these practices, they reduce themselves to the same level of criminality they are supposed to prevent and address.
What’s more, when their principles – like senior officials and politicians engage in condoning and justifying unlawful behaviour by law enforcement officials, they expose themselves as authoritarians of little or no moral fibre.
What responsible people do when they incur traffic fines
First and foremost, it should go without saying that law-abiding motorists don’t incur traffic fines. That’s because they obey road traffic laws and don’t allow their concentration to lapse whilst driving.
Sadly though, many have come to believe that traffic fines can be ignored because they merely represent a money-making racket. After all, most traffic fines constitute little more than an invoice allowing the breaking of what are considered to be lesser laws, so long as payment is made to the authorities when one does so.
Although this thinking is understandable to some extent, especially in view of the fact that even Treasury considers traffic fines to be debts to local and provincial authorities, the fact is that traffic fines should never be taken lightly. Their purported purpose is to discourage the contravention of road traffic laws, not allow one to contravene them so long as one pays.
When a responsible person becomes aware of a traffic fine issued against him or her, he or she deals with it in the appropriate manner, as quickly as possible. “Dealing with it” does not mean paying a bribe. It means taking the appropriate action to address the matter.
The appropriate action may include, but is by no means limited to paying the penalty. If you know you are guilty, put on your grown-up underwear and pay the fine!
If you are not guilty, or have any other reason to challenge the notice in question, then do so as quickly and efficiently as possible. Remember that the Constitution holds that it is the duty of whomever accuses another to prove their allegation, not for an accused person to prove their innocence.
The opinions offered in this article are those of Howard Dembovsky and are not to be construed as constituting legal advice. If you have any doubt or questions regarding legal principles, you are strongly advised to consult with a duly qualified legal professional.
On 8 March 2019, the Department of Transport published a proposed vehicle licensing transaction fee increase of R10 per transaction (payable to the RTMC) in Government Gazette 42291. As you may recall, this fee increased by R30 per transaction, from R42 to R72 with effect from 1 January 2018.
Here below are our comments on this proposed increase:
JOHANNESBURG – The Gauteng Provincial Legislature is holding public hearings on the AARTO Amendment Bill, 2015 at three venues around Gauteng in the coming weeks. Apparently, a fourth hearing took place at Springs Civic Centre yesterday, but obviously it’s too late for anyone to attend that hearing.
The dates and venues are as follows and all public hearings commence at 16:00:
22nd March 2018
Braamfontein Conference and Recreation Centre
Cnr Harrison and Smit Street, Braamfontein
26 March 2018
Vereeniging Community Hall
Cnr. Leslie and Beaconsfield Avenue, Vereeniging
28 March 2018
Stanza Bopape Community Centre, Mamelodi East
Rammapudu Street, Ext 5, Mamelodi East 1
No email address has been provided for written submissions but since the chairperson of the Roads and Transport Portfolio Committee at the Gauteng Provincial Legislature is apparently Mr. M. Mgcina, we are assuming that written submissions may be addressed to him via the Committee’s coordinator, who appears to be Mr Sithembiso Mthiyane, and whose email address is SMthiyane@gpl.gov.za.
This is the very last opportunity for motorists in Gauteng to provide their inputs and express their concerns with the Bill which primarily seeks to migrate traffic fines completely out of the jurisdiction of the courts and into a purely administrative system where motorists are presumed to be guilty from the second a traffic fine is issued. A points-demerit system also forms a small part of the AARTO Act.
JPSA encourages anyone who holds a driving licence and/or is the registered owner of a motor vehicle to take the time to read the AARTO Amendment Bill and participate in the public hearings. A copy of the Bill and an easy to understand summary of its more salient points is available at www.aarto.co.za.
A recent question posted on the Facebook group, Legal Talk SA has again highlighted the fact that few people understand the practical implications of being convicted of a crime – more especially when that crime relates to a road traffic offence. For some bizarre reason, it appears that a great many people do not regard road traffic offences as constituting a crime, but the fact of the matter is that nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s very easy to give other people advice when the consequences which will befall the person asking for advice don’t have any effect on you. As a result, one often finds advice being dished out on social media, and whilst much of this advice may be well-intended, some of it can have an adverse effect on the person who places their reliance in that advice.
Below is some competent practical advice which will put anyone who stands accused of a road traffic crime in a better position to understand how they should go about dealing with the matter. It must also be noted that as much as this advice applies to road traffic crimes, it also applies to most other crimes for which the offender is arrested and fingerprinted, particularly where those crimes are regarded as being “minor crimes”, like disturbing the peace, for example.
The question posed in the Facebook group was as follows:
“Need an urgent help, I know I messed up, I got arrested for driving 143km/h in 100km/h zone, was released on bail same day, problem is that I was arrested in Ngodwana however I stay in Johannesburg, have been given a court date to attend in Nelspruit which is very far from Johannesburg, what I’m interested in is that what will be the judge Vedict be, how much fine, should I bring the fine the same day or I can pay in installments?”
No-one can accurately predict what the verdict of a Court will be, nor can they accurately predict what penalty will be imposed by a judicial officer if the accused person is convicted. The sentence handed down by a judicial officer in Court and which could be a fine or imprisonment is only part of the story and part of the consequences which will befall you and therefore, one should not be too hasty in making a decision on how to approach such a matter.
The first thing that everyone needs to understand is that when you are arrested for a road traffic offence, regardless of what offence it may be, that offence constitutes a crime, and if and when you are convicted of it or pay an admission of guilt fine in relation to it, you will incur a criminal record which will reflect on the South African Police Service (SAPS) Criminal Records Centre (CRC) database. This will in turn adversely affect your employment prospects and could also result in the refusal of a travel visa.
It is a current policy requirement of the SAPS CRC that a docket number and the fingerprints of a convicted person must be submitted to it in order for such criminal record to be registered, and therefore, if you are arrested and your fingerprints have been taken, and you are then convicted or pay an admission of guilt fine for any crime, no matter how serious or minor that crime may be regarded to be, you will incur a criminal record. Such a criminal record will endure forever, unless you apply to have it expunged after ten years or successfully appeal the conviction at some time prior to that.
Obviously, the best way to avoid incurring a criminal record is to simply always obey the law, however if you do happen to break the law then you must be fully aware of the consequences which will befall you before you make any decision on how to handle the matter.
You should never forget though that it is the duty of the State to prove its allegations, not of the accused to prove his or her innocence and this principle is adequately articulated and catered for in Section 35(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Furthermore, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977) apply.
Whilst judicial officers (Magistrates and Judges) do have the discretion to allow a convicted person to pay the monetary penalty (fine) by means of a deferred fine, meaning that the fine can be paid off in installments, whether the fine is paid immediately or in installments will have no effect on the fact that a criminal record will be registered and will prevail against your name.
There is an old adage that goes “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client” and it must follow that if you are not a lawyer but still choose to represent yourself in a criminal matter, you are placing yourself at a severe disadvantage. As alluded to earlier, it is for the State to prove your guilt in a criminal trial and not for you to prove your innocence.
Not that long ago, both, Julius Malema and Zwelinzima Vavi proved that just because they were arrested for allegedly excessively high speeds, does not mean that the State could prove that they were guilty. It’s all well and good that some people have suggested that this arose out of the political nature of these individuals and/or out of legal “technicalities”, but one must remember that the measurement of speed is a highly technical matter and therefore is subject to technical rules and issues.
Admittedly, not everyone has the money to splash out on expensive lawyers, but the decision of whether or not you wish to engage the services of a lawyer to represent you in a criminal matter cannot be made solely on your current ability to afford to engage a lawyer, but must also consider the financial impact which incurring a criminal record will have on you, if you are convicted.
But what if you know that you are guilty and want to minimise the time you need to appear in court?
Well, you may plead guilty immediately when you are asked to plead, and in so doing, save the prosecution the time and effort which would be spent on proving its case, and in turn the Court’s time in hearing the matter. But as much as a judicial officer may appreciate you not wasting the Court’s time by attempting to “defend the indefensible”, and as a result, may reflect this appreciation by imposing a more lenient sentence, the fact still remains that a criminal conviction will have an adverse impact on your life, going forward.
If you are a first-time offender and are genuinely remorseful, the prosecution may well be willing to enter into a diversion programme agreement with you prior to the matter going to trial and in so doing, keep the matter outside of the Court. Although the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in the Free State is reluctant to enter into diversion agreements with persons accused of road traffic offences, the NPA in most of the other provinces is generally not averse to this concept in deserving cases.
A good diversion programme will contain a mix of community service, as well as remedial education, designed to correct the behavior of the offender, rather than punish him or her. Any accused person may approach the public prosecutor to enquire about his or her eligibility to be entered into a diversion agreement, but once again, it is advisable to have a lawyer make such an approach, to ensure that you don’t end up inadvertently admitting guilt and being prosecuted anyway, or have a diversion agreement go awry by being improperly handled.
Once you have entered into a diversion agreement, you will have to appear in court where the criminal charges against you will be provisionally withdrawn. Once all of the conditions of the diversion agreement have been met, the matter will be permanently withdrawn. For more information regarding diversion, please speak to NICRO.
JPSA strongly supports the concept of diversion programmes for first-time offenders, not because it is soft on crime or in any way believes that anyone should be allowed to act as they wish, but because it realises and acknowledges the severe impact that incurring a criminal record has on a person who may not necessarily have intended to embark on a career of criminality. The trouble with imposing a criminal record straight off the bat is that, in its practical implementation, it actively precludes people from employment and people who are precluded from employment will invariably have to either become self employed, sponge off relatives or become a career criminal in order to survive. This, in turn, is not in the interests of justice or society as a whole.
On the score of criminal record checks, it is JPSA’s view that employment agencies and others who, instead of going to the expense and effort of lawfully acquiring the criminal records of individuals through registered Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) service providers, choose to acquire this information through those who unlawfully check the ID number of the applicant against the SAPS Crime Administration System (CAS) should be shut down and prosecuted. The only legal way to check a criminal record is to do so based on the fingerprints of that person and all other methods are strictly unlawful and generally involve corruption of police officials.
Once again, the role of social media in revealing the locations of roadblocks set up by the Metro Police is in the spotlight, this time involving allegations that an entire list of planned weekend roadblock locations has been “leaked” on a WhatsApp group.
According to the Sunday Tribune, the Acting Chief of the Durban Metropolitan Police Department, Steve Middleton on Friday evening, instead of adopting a professional policing approach in investigating the alleged crime and handling it in accordance with internationally applicable policing protocols, taken to Facebook to level threats against the alleged perpetrator.
“Hand yourself over or risk arrest” he allegedly demanded of “P Pillay” in his Facebook post.
What’s truly terrifying about this matter however is how Middleton is quoted as saying “We will open a charge of defeating the ends of justice with the police” and then saying “We will then liaise with the state prosecutors to see exactly what information and what evidence will be necessary to get a conviction”.
Surely even the most junior junior policeman would or should, if he is unsure of what the elements of a crime are and what evidence is required in order to secure a conviction, ask a state prosecutor to clarify the matter before taking any action which could come back to bite him and/or the Metro later? Failure to do so can only be described as reckless behaviour and often results in law suits which are ultimately settled out of court by insurance companies the Metros engage to provide them with “professional indemnity insurance”.
The fact that a so-called “Metro Police Chief”, who is the most senior of all people in Metro Police structures can have the audacity to admit to a journalist that he has no idea of what the legal test for a charge of “defeating the ends of justice” is, bears testimony to the utter incompetence of the top brass in many Metro Police structures. And we then wonder why it is that the rank and file of Metro Police Departments similarly demonstrate gross incompetence and tend to suffer from “Rambo syndrome”?
As Mr Middleton will no doubt find out, the legal test for a charge of “defeating the ends of justice” is stringent and merely informing a group of individuals you may or may not know but have no knowledge of whether they are involved in a crime or not of the location of one or more roadblocks does not even come close to meeting that test.
After all, even Google Maps, which is freely accessible to anyone with a smartphone references “police activity” when used to navigate the route with the least delays to your destination. I use it frequently, even when I know exactly where I am going and especially at this time of year when ridiculously long delays are caused by the showy roadblocks established to demonstrate to us all just how much the authorities “care about our safety” over the festive season.
Since I am making this admission in public and am referencing Google Maps, are charges now going to be brought against me and Google Inc for “defeating the ends of justice”?
I don’t drive drunk, in fact, I don’t drink alcohol or use drugs at all but if I did I think that knowing that there are roadblocks around would sway my decision in favour of using a “take me home” service, Uber or a taxi instead of risking arrest. If just one person were to be so swayed by the “leaking” of roadblock locations, then it would have the effect of preventing a crime and possibly even preventing injury or death – in other words, it would have the exact opposite effect to “defeating the ends of justice”.
This is not to say that I find the concept of sharing legitimate and lawfully constituted roadblock locations on social media to be in the interests of public safety, more especially when those roadblocks are utilised to detect criminals transporting contraband and/or to establish vehicle and driver fitness, but from my observation relatively few roadblocks are established for this purpose.
You see, numerous, if not most roadblocks established by Metro Police and other traffic authorities have little or nothing to do with crime prevention, road safety and/or assessing vehicle and driver fitness and some actually constitute a danger to road safety because of how and where they are set up.
Allegedly, on Sunday 26 November 2017, the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department set up a roadblock on the R21 freeway in Kempton Park and this had the effect of causing what can only be described as ridiculous delays to motorists on that freeway.
The apparent sole purpose thereof was to execute warrants of arrest against motorists who had failed to appear in court and the operation could not have yielded more than a handful, if any such arrests. If it had, it would have been plastered all over the media by the EMPD as they have done in the past when they managed to execute a remarkable sixteen arrests over a period of two and a half hours, whilst simultaneously causing undue and unjustifiable delays to thousands of motorists heading to and from OR Tambo International Airport.
Allegedly, a woman driving with her young children in her car spent 100 minutes (almost two hours) reaching the front of the queue, only to be waved through without so much as a single, let alone second glance at her or her vehicle and apparently because her number plate did not trigger an alert with respect to a warrant.
She was, as I can only assume others were, extremely annoyed by this grossly unreasonable delay and given the fact that she was nothing more than an innocent party for whom the Metro Police have no regard caught up in this abusive practice, she tweeted the location of this roadblock. Apparently, the not-so infamous PigSpotter with more than 534,000 followers did the same.
A couple of years ago, the PigSpotter was regarded by the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department as being “public enemy number one” and people like Wayne Minnaar engaged in a slew of threats to track him down and prosecute him for “defeating the ends of justice” as well as for crimen injuria for calling Metro cops ugly names.
What became of that? Blow all, except for his astronomical rise to stardom, a phenomenal growth in his Twitter followers and the eventual registration of a company by the name of PigSpotter (Pty) Ltd through which Cliff Pinto gets to sell PigSpotter memorabilia.
The Durban Metro Police Department has apparently learned nothing from this phenomenon and what’s worse is that its so-called “Chief” apparently thinks that it’s clever to take to Facebook to vent his frustrations over his own glaringly obvious failure to implement sufficient internal controls to prevent the leaking of confidential information from within the very organisation he heads. He even goes so far as to publicly admit that this was “not the first time that information has been leaked”.
Just whose fault is that? After all, he is the so-called “Chief of Police” and is ultimately responsible for each and every action and incident arising from within the Metro Police Department.
If I were Middleton, I would have quietly investigated the origin of the leak, gathered the requisite evidence to convict the staff member responsible and made damn sure to plug the hole in the system. There’s also another option – to put out hordes of false information in order to deter would be “drunken drivers” and encourage them to use public transport as has been done by some Metros in the past, or to engage in “random roadside breath alcohol testing” as is currently being practiced in the Western Cape if your sole purpose is to catch “drunken drivers”.
The very last thing I would have done, if I did it at all, would have been to take to social media to throw a hissy fit and publicly identify and threaten a member of the public with arrest.
For as long as I can remember, KwaZulu-Natal has had a “zero tolerance” policy yet it has consistently managed to deliver the most catastrophic road death statistics in the country. Perhaps it’s time for it to consider adopting a less tolerant approach to incompetence within its law enforcement entities, or is this simply asking too much?
Howard Dembovsky is the Chairperson of Justice Project South Africa
See also: “Can you be arrested for flashing lights warning other motorists of speed traps?” by Advocate Johan Jonck here.
It has come to our attention that SANRAL and/or its business partners, Electronic Toll Collection (Pty) Ltd – a Kapsch TrafficCom Company, has been sending out emails in an apparent attempt to refute the notion that prescribed debt in the form of unpaid e-tolls is not simply going to be let go.
Once again, it is noted that the contents of these emails refers to the non-payment of e-tolls constituting a criminal offence for which offenders can be prosecuted and as a result, incur a criminal record.
This is in no way a new claim and/or tactic on the part of SANRAL. In fact various individuals at SANRAL have been making such claims and threats since before the go-live date of 13 December 2013 (four years ago) and every single time SANRAL sees itself backed into a corner and losing the battle in collecting monies from a public which has quite simply refused to be bullied into paying for this ridiculous scheme, they again level their threats.
But is there any truth to their threats, and if so, what are the implications which would arise out of a conviction?
The short answer is yes; failure to pay any toll arising from driving on a toll road is theoretically a criminal offence in certain jurisdictions, but just because there is some truth to SANRAL’s propaganda does not mean that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
To the contrary, the level of applicability to criminal convictions is so low that SANRAL has sought to try and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in the single prosecution it brought against Dr Stoyan Stoychev more than two years ago, in 2015.
Stoychev was prosecuted for number plate fraud and the non-payment of his e-tolls was merely a coincidental, ancillary charge which arose out of that, yet SANRAL tried its utmost to deliberately distort the facts in this matter to make it appear as if this was “the first e-tolls prosecution”, even going so far as to commission a professional quality video it published on YouTube.
Prior to and since that conviction on 10 September 2015, SANRAL has not brought even a single “vanilla” prosecution for non-payment of e-tolls, in fact it has not instituted a single criminal prosecution for non-payment of e-tolls ever, nor has it issued a single notification in terms of Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act (fine), let alone approached the clerk of the court to issue and serve a single summons in terms of Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Act. A criminal conviction simply cannot arise unless the accused person is summoned and either pays an admission of guilt fine or is convicted by the Court.
The lack of mass prosecution is in no way to be interpreted as representing an indication of SANRAL’s benevolence and/or sympathy with road users. SANRAL would have dearly loved to “make examples” of a few people and in so doing, scared everyone else into submission but the fact of the matter is that this would be and has proven itself to be a lot easier said than done.
What the law says.
Section 25(5) of The South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act 7 of 1998) unequivocally prescribes that:
“Any person liable for toll who, at a toll plaza or other place for the payment of toll determined and made known in terms of subsection (1), refuses or fails to pay the amount of toll that is due—
(a) is guilty of an offence and punishable on conviction with imprisonment for a period not longer than six months or a fine, or with both the term of imprisonment and the fine; and
(b) is liable, in addition, to pay to the Agency a civil fine of R1 000. This amount may be increased in 1999 and annually thereafter in accordance with the increase in the official consumer price index for the relevant year as published in the Gazette.”
Therein lies the basis in truth where, in terms of Section 25(5)(a) of the SANRAL Act, it is indeed an offence to fail or refuse to pay tolls.
Just so you know, the SANRAL Act is road traffic legislation which falls within the ambit of legislation enacted by the Department of Transport and is therefore subject to the identical conditions any other road traffic and transport law enacted by that department is subject to, particular where it comes to the prosecution of offences created by its provisions.
Section 89(1) of the National Road Traffic Act, 1996 (Act 93 of 1996) similarly prescribes that:
“Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or with any direction, condition, demand, determination, requirement, term or request thereunder, shall be guilty of an offence”,
And Section 89(6) then goes on to prescribe that:
“Any person convicted of an offence in terms of subsection (1) read with any other provision of this Act shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.”
As you can see, the commission of any offence in terms of the National Road Traffic Act is considered, at minimum, to be twice as serious as the non-payment of toll, notwithstanding the fact that Section 25(5)(b) of the SANRAL Act contemplates a peculiar form of duplicate punishment which seeks to punish the offender twice for the same offence.
There are two different prosecution instruments used to prosecute any and all offences created by road traffic and transport law.
One of these prosecution instruments is the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977) and this relic of the apartheid era has some pretty ominous provisions built into it which seek to punish “criminals”, regardless of the level of seriousness associated with the crime such persons commit. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act apply everywhere in South Africa except in the jurisdictions of the Metropolitan Municipalities of Tshwane and Johannesburg.
While paying a fine associated with a notification in terms of Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot result in the recordal of a criminal record (previous conviction), paying an admission of guilt fine associated with a section 54 summons or section 56 written notice to appear in Court must, according to Section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, result in the clerk of the Court recording a conviction in the “criminal records book for admissions of guilt”.
In practical application however, the provisions of Section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act do not result in a criminal record being registered on the SAPS Criminal Records Centre database when people pay admission of guilt fines for “traffic fines”. If it did, there would be few drivers and/or vehicle owners who would not be automatically precluded from employment and travel.
But in the jurisdictions of the Metropolitan Municipalities of Tshwane and Johannesburg, the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act, 1998 (Act 46 of 1998) apply and these are markedly different to the Criminal Procedure Act. Through the provisions of Section 22(4) of the AARTO Act, anyone who pays an admission of guilt fine arising out of an AARTO infringement notice “does not incur previous convictions”, thereby effectively decriminalising so-called “minor offences”.
Now, given the fact that Section 17(1) of the AARTO Act is prescriptive in prescribing that “If a person is alleged to have committed an infringement, an authorised officer or a person duly authorised by an issuing authority, must instead of a notice contemplated in section 56 or 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), and subject to section 23, serve or cause to be served on that person an infringement notice,…”, it should be pretty clear to all concerned that the Criminal Procedure Act may not be used to prosecute e-toll non-payers within a large area of the current GFIP’s roads infrastructure.
Regulation 3(1)(b) of the AARTO Regulations, 2008 further goes on to prescribe that an AARTO 03 infringement notice must be issued and served by “registered mail”within 40 days of the alleged infringement and the non-payment of any toll is specifically contemplated (albeit poorly in relation to e-tolls) under charge codes 3820 and 3821 in Schedule 3 of the AARTO Regulations.
The implication of these laws.
Although they will never admit it, the anomaly of the provisions of two, distinctly different prosecutions instruments existing for the self-same offence has left SANRAL with somewhat of an administrative nightmare. As stated above, a large area of the roads which comprise the GFIP are governed by the provisions of the AARTO Act while other areas are governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. The map below demonstrates how some of the GFIP falls within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Procedure Act and others fall within the jurisdiction of the AARTO Act.
Prosecuting e-tolls violations – What prosecution instrument applies where?
SANRAL quite simply cannot choose to use one Act or the other to issue prosecute the non-payment of e-tolls, it has to use the prescribed prosecution instrument and since a large proportion of the GFIP falls within the jurisdictions where the AARTO Act must be used, it has no choice but to comply with its provisions. Additionally, some parts of the GFIP fall within the provisions of the AARTO Act in one direction on the freeway, and within the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act in the other.
Even though SANRAL has tried to have the provisions of the AARTO Act amended to cater for up to 100 infringements to be included on a single AARTO 03 infringement notice, this is not possible in terms of the AARTO Act and each infringement must be cited separately on its own infringement notice.
Even if only one million motorists fail to pay e-tolls, at minimum SANRAL would have to issue no less than two million infringement notices per day, but in reality, it would probably have to issue and serve well over four times that many. The current cost of the registered letter service provided by the SA Post Office is R27.30 per registered letter (there is no such service as “registered mail” or “registered post). Take that rate and times it by four and you will see that SANRAL will cost itself no less than R54.6 million a day in posting AARTO 03 infringement notices, thus further worsening its financial situation in the hope that some people will pay the fines.
Where the Criminal Procedure Act applies the service of summonses issued in terms of Section 54 of the Act must be effected in person and the process servers involved in that process do not work for free either. In fact, the cost of such personal service is considerably more expensive than the SAPO’s registered letter service and that is not the only consideration which needs to be taken into account. All criminal matters would have to be heard in the lower Courts with jurisdiction over the part of the GFIP in which the “offence” occurred and the Court rolls simply cannot cater for millions of additional prosecutions.
So where to from here?
From what has been laid out in this article, you should be able to understand that whilst SANRAL’s threats are loosely based on the facts, but ignores the practical implications and other factors which would surround criminal prosecution for the non-payment of e-tolls.
JPSA does not and never will tell people not to pay e-tolls. What it does do however is to provide you with truthful and relevant information to enable you to make your own mind up as to what you want to do about e-tolls.
It is highly unlikely that SANRAL will ever be able to prosecute everyone who refuses to buy into its ill-founded e-tolls scheme, but if you want a 100% guarantee that you will not be prosecuted, then the only way to achieve that is to go and pay what SANRAL claims you “owe” in e-tolls.
If however you wish to take a stand and take your chances, the possibilities of you actually being prosecuted are so low that they are practically negligible and all of what has been articulated in this article is relevant. If you are unlucky enough to be the one who is prosecuted, then all of the provisions of the Constitution, 1996 and various other provisions of legislation are applicable and at the very least, you are entitled to a fair trial in an ordinary public Court.
Make up your own mind, but only do so after considering all of the relevant factors – not based on “what everyone else is doing”.
Since 21 September 2017, JPSA has been flooded with enquiries from members of the public who had received emails from the email address “RTIA@trafficnotification.co.za” craftily and deviously seeking to extort monies from them. These emails contain the logo of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (“RTIA”) and the words “Outstanding Infringements summary report as at 07 September 2017 (JMPD infringements only)” followed by a person’s name and full national identity number.
This is what the emails look like:
Below this “header” appears a schedule of outstanding infringement notices against the particulars of the person to whom the email was sent which looks something like this with *You will not be able to renew your vehicle or driving license whilst an Enforcement Order is outstanding trailing it:
The above list includes up to 30 alleged infringements in it, which list may not necessarily be exhaustive, but only includes infringement notices issued by the JMPD.
And then there’s a table which looks like this:
Apparently, SMS messages have also been sent to some people, which look like this:
In both cases, the telephone number 011 036 7515 is listed as the contact number for the JMPD, however, this phone number does not exist in the real world.
So what’s the problem?
At the outset, it is important to note that we acknowledge that the reason people are receiving SMS messages and emails similar to this one is that they do indeed have outstanding infringement notices which exist against their particulars.
In most instances this would be as a result of a vehicle registered in the name of the person to whom the email is sent having allegedly committed one or more road traffic infringements – most probably speeding or parking infringement. If the infringement notice starts with the prefix “02” it’s most probably a speeding infringement and if it starts with the prefix “03” it’s most probably a parking infringement.
The likelihood of it being a parking infringement is extremely low, since the JMPD was well-known for its obsession for deploying hidden speed cameras and focusing on little other than speeding and little else, in the 16 years preceding the recent termination of illegally extended speed camera contracts, which may or may not have been revived by now.
JPSA’s issue is not with the fact that people are being notified of “traffic fines” which have been issued against those people’s particulars. Our “issue” is with the timing and manner in which this has been done since, without exception, those who have contacted us to ask about the ligitimacy of these emails have complained about not knowing that any of the fines listed had been issued, some of which date back five years to 2012, when the JMPD ceased unlawfully violating Section 30(1) of the AARTO Act by posting bogus “AARTO infringement notices” it had captured on its own systems since April 2010 by “ordinary domestic mail”.
In most instances, even where they don’t date back as far as 2102, the fines listed in these emails have mostly “stagnated” and in so doing, become unenforceable since procedure has not been followed by the authorities. Syntell, the JMPD and the RTIA are acutely aware of this fact and it is the JMPD itself which has repeatedly complained in the media and elsewhere that the RTIA has not done its job, but has instead, allowed these fines to stagnate.
It is therefore JPSA’s assertion that the email and SMS campaign launched by Syntell (Pty) Ltd, masquerading as the RTIA is at best, devious and seeks to take advantage of that portion of the public who may be unaware of the fact that many, if not most of these fines have “stagnated” and cannot result in an enforcement order being issued – ever.
We know that many people do not like having to read through a detailed explanation before getting to the nitty-gritty of how to deal with a situation, therefore we will provide this up front. Detailed information is however available later in this advisory.
Practical advice regarding these email notifications
If you have received one of these emails, it is our advice that you visit the aarto.gov.za website without delay and get a full printout of all of your outstanding infringements. If you have any enforcement orders, deal with those first.
Unfortunately, we have lost all faith in the ability of the RTIA to act impartially, since they have actively demonstrated that they are not. If you have any enforcement orders, you may find that you are left with little choice but to pay them in order to complete any licensing transaction you may be trying to complete.
With respect to any other posted infringement notice (starts with the prefix “02” or “03”) which is still at the “infringement notice” or “courtesy letter” stage, download, complete and submit an AARTO 10 election to be tried in court formfor each and every infringement which exists against your particulars.
This will prevent the so-called “adjudication procedure” from continuing automatically and/or unexpectedly and will help you exercise your constitutional right to a fair trial. If/when you are summoned (in terms of Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Act), you are perfectly entitled to raise the issue that the authorities have not complied with the so-called AARTO “adjudication procedure”.
Electing to be tried in court does not equate to unlawfully “evading liability” as has been asserted by the RTIA. Furthermore it does not equate to an intention of “flooding the court system” and would not be necessary if the RTIA simply had the credibility and genuine independence to “adjudicate” over matters from which it makes money.
JPSA and its Chairperson take extreme offence to the attitude of the RTIA that the Constitution does not apply to “traffic fines” and that issuing authorities and the RTIA cannot, or should not be held accountable by the courts.
Further details surrounding this issue
If you are interested in the full details surrounding this issue, please click on the button below.
Are these emails authentic?
No-one can be blamed for being suspicious of emails which appear out of the blue, claiming that they “owe monies” to anyone. In this particular case we can confirm that these emails are authentic insofar as they relate to the individuals who have received them, but this is only part of the story.
Please read on in order to fully understand why it is that although the facts contained in such emails are not untrue as such, the entire motivation and intention behind them is extremely devious and patently dishonest in nature.
Who or what is the “RTIA”?
The Road Traffic Infringement Agency (“RTIA”) is a State Owned Enterprise which was created out of thin air by Section 3 of the AARTO Act.
The RTIA masquerades as being an “independent adjudicator between motorists and issuing authorities”. In reality however, when it comes down to the brass tacks of the AARTO Act, the RTIA is effectively little more than a “debt collector on steroids”, with far-reaching powers to effectively force the payment of traffic fines on behalf of all of the issuing authorities (traffic departments, etc.) where the AARTO Act applies and in order to create yet another revenue-focussed State Owned Enterprise.
We do not say this lightly and assert that the RTIA is not and never can be an “independent entity” which can be likened to the courts – even by the farthest stretch of the imagination.
More than 95% of the RTIA’s 2015/16 revenues came from its share of traffic fines, combined with the fees it raises upon courtesy letters, enforcement orders and written representations it makes unsuccessful; issued in terms of the AARTO Act. The grant it received from Parliament to sustain itself in that financial year represented just under one sixth of its salary bill alone.
Essentially, the RTIA can be likened to the proverbial wolf debating with a sheep who is going to have who for dinner! So much for its disingenuous motto: “justice in adjudication”.
Are these emails actually from the RTIA?
The domain names that are owned and operated by the RTIA are “aarto.gov.za” and “rtia.co.za” ONLY. Any emails which do not originate from either of these two domains are not from the RTIA itself, but from a third party who may or may not be authorised to send emails on the RTIA’s behalf.
We can unequivocally state that, even if these emails were sanctioned by the RTIA, they were not sent by the RTIA.
Who owns the domain trafficnotification.co.za?
The domain name “trafficnotification.co.za” is registered to Syntell (Pty) Ltd, one of the bigger private enterprise players in the traffic fines industry. Amongst a plethora of others, its clients include the JMPD, the RTIA, the EMPD and the City of Cape Town Traffic Services. The website www.paycity.co.za also belongs to Syntell.
Is Syntell authorised to use the RTIA’s logo?
Traffic fine “contractors” to the numerous traffic authorities throughout South Africa have been using the logos and/or badges of their clients in email communications for ages now. Some have even gone so far as to establish call centres which redirect any queries meant for the traffic authority to whom they contract to their own private companies. In so doing, these private companies masquerade as being the actual traffic authority.
Syntell is no exception to this rule and simply loves plonking an official badge, logo and/or entity name other than its own on communications it sends out in an apparent effort to appear to be the traffic authority itself.
It is a fact that nowhere in the AARTO Act is the RTIA authorised to favour one issuing authority over another. This said, and given the fact that the RTIA has actively condoned may illegal practices under the AARTO Act in the past, is not beyond the realm of possibility that the RTIA may have authorised Syntell to use its name and logo in this particular email campaign.
However we would like to give the RTIA the benefit of the doubt and say it is unlikely that it and/or its management would have been so short-sighted to have authorised the sending of emails referring to outstanding AARTO infringement notices issued by only one issuing authority – namely the JMPD.
If the RTIA did indeed commission this email campaign, we are pretty sure that the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department (“TMPD”), Gauteng Department of Community Safety (GDoCS) and the Road Traffic Management Corportation’s (“RTMC’s”) so-called “National Traffic Police” would like to know why it is that their fines were actively excluded.
Issuing authorities’ duty to properly serve infringement notices
Without exception, each and every person who has contacted us regarding these emails has asserted that they knew nothing about the alleged infringements prior to receiving this email.
Section 30(1) of the AARTO Act clearlyprescribes that “Any document required to be served on an infringer in terms of this Act, must be served on the infringer personally or sent by registered mail to his or her last known address.”
Regulation 3(1)(b) of the AARTO Regulations clearly prescribes that “An infringement notice contemplated in section 17 (1) of the Act shall be issued and served or caused to be served to the infringer by registered mail, on a form similar to form AARTO 03 as shown in Schedule 1, within 40 days of the commission of the infringement.“
Section 30(2) of the AARTO Act then goes on to introduce an unreasonable presumption that “A document which is sent by registered mail in terms of subsection (1), is regarded to have been served on the infringer on the tenth day after the date which is stamped upon the receipt issued by the post office which accepted the document for registration, unless evidence to the contrary is adduced, which may be in the form of an affidavit.”
Anyone who applies even a small portion of their mind would acknowledge that in order for someone to do anything about a traffic fine which has been issued against their particulars, they would need to know that this has happened. After all, how can anyone be expected to do anything about anything they know nothing about?
It’s one thing if a traffic officer stops you and issues you with a citation there and then, thus serving you with the infringement notice and making you aware of it immediately, but it is another issue entirely if you are not stopped, but instead have an infringement notice posted to you.
Without fail, each and every person who has queried these emails has asserted that they never knew anything about the existence of the infringement notices prior to the email and this can only mean that they were not served with them. In the vast majority of cases, the RTIA’s own “SAPO tracking detail” at its website confirms that service was not effected. Furthermore, in a high volume of cases, it also reflects that they were not even posted.
The RTIA’s duty to properly serve other AARTO documents
The AARTO Act is very specific in prescribing the processes which must follow one another within very strict, inflexible timeframes. The RTIA is responsible for issuing courtesy letters which must be issued if an alleged infringer has failed to exercise any of the so-called “elective options” upon an infringement notice within 32 days of the service of an infringement notice – and the issuing authority has informed the RTIA “in the prescribed manner”.
Once a courtesy letter has been issued, it must be elevated to an enforcement order if the alleged infringer has not exercised any of the three so-called “elective options” available to them in terms of a courtesy letter within 32 days of the service (or presumed service) of the courtesy letter. In the 2015/16 financial year, the RTIA issued 640,169 enforcement orders, arising out of 3,016,050 courtesy letters it issued.
All courtesy letters and enforcement orders must also be served in person or by “registered mail”. Remarkably, since the inception of the AARTO experiment in Tshwane and Johannesburg, the RTIA has not caused even a single courtesy letter or enforcement order to be served in person. Instead, it relies on “secure/hybrid mail” to post these important documents, despite knowing that there is something seriously wrong with the functionality of this product offering of the South African Post Office.
It has repeatedly been held that AARTO infringement notices which have not complied with the so-called “adjudication procedure” as is prescribed in the AARTO Act have “stagnated” – in other words, become unenforceable. The most recent reference thereto comes from a High Court Review Judgment in the matter between Fines 4 U (Pty) Ltd and Audi Johannesburg versus Sherman Amos (the Deputy Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency) and others (Pretoria High Court Case number 30586/2014).
Simply put, because the AARTO Act prescribes the processes which must be followed by both, alleged infringers and the authorities, entities like the issuing authorities and the RTIA may not make things up as they go along. If no further action has resulted from the issuing of an infringement notice within the prescribed time frame, then no further action may lawfully result. This in turn causes that infringement notice to “stagnate”, wherein it cannot proceed any further.
Contrary to popular belief and arising out of inaccurate news reports, Judge Prinsloo and the High Court did not order that “all stagnated traffic fines must be cancelled” programatically. What his judgment did hold however is that anyone who becomes aware of the fact that they have such stagnated AARTO infringement notices against their particulars may raise the issue that that the so-called “adjudication procedure” has not been followed and for that reason, the fine should be cancelled.
Why is the RTIA keeping stagnated fines alive?
The practice of keeping traffic fines which have stagnated alive on websites and other computer systems is not new to South Africa, nor is it unique to the AARTO Act and/or the RTIA. In fact, this practice is so widespread that it would be impossible to list every traffic authority that does so. More accurately, we have been unable to find even one which doesn’t.
Where the AARTO Act is not in force, but instead the Criminal Procedure Act applies, there is even a national directive from the National Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw and finalise any and all traffic fines issued by traffic authorities which have not resulted in the issuing (and service) of a summons within 18 months of the alleged offence. This is not a “new” directive as such, it merely standardises the former provincial directives which varied the time frame within which this process must happen. Nevertheless, all of these directives have been ignored by traffic authorities and their contractors since the year dot.
The apparent reasoning behind keeping stagnated fines alive appears to arise from a belief that some, less well-informed people will pay fines which simply cannot proceed any further in the false belief that the threats leveled against them will actually be carried out if they don’t pay. They can’t and therefore, asserting that they can is tantamount to extortion and outright fraud.
The RTIA’s reasoning for keeping stagnated fines alive appears to be predicated much along the same lines, except insofar as the AARTO Act doesn’t actually prescribe what must happen if the issuing authorities and/or the RTIA does not do their jobs. Very little legislation contemplates the failure on the part of authorities to do their jobs, quite simply because it is assumed that because they are law enforcers, they will.
If such authorities don’t do their jobs as prescribed, it falls upon the public to take the authorities to court in order to force them to act within the framework of the law.
Has JPSA written to the RTIA about this issue?
Since Howard Dembovsky and JPSA were grossly and unjustly insulted by politicians in the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Transport in September 2016, we are done writing to the RTIA and others involved in the “AARTO issue”. Any future such debates will take place in a forum where politicians do not get to actively demonstrate their immunity from defamation suits.
On 27 September, the RTIA put out the following media statement, “apologising” for the so-called “communication error” in SMS communications. As you will see, no reference was made or even implied with respect to the email communications which were sent. JPSA takes a very dim view of this disingenuous and misleading so-called “apology” and has written to the RTIA to inform it as such.
JOHANNESBURG – As revealed in the Moneyweb article entitled “No more camera fines for Joburg speedsters” on Wednesday 17 August 2017, the City of Johannesburg is not currently issuing and posting somewhere in the region of a half a million camera “speeding” fines each month, as it used to do in the past.
Instead, traffic officers – some equipped with speed measuring equipment – are being utilised to physically and visibly enforce road traffic laws in and around the City.
This is due to the termination of a string of contracts with private “contractors” which previously supplied the City with portable speed cameras to “hide in the bushes” in an effort to generate revenue, and whose whose contracts could not lawfully be extended. JPSA believes that this is a good thing, as opposed to the bad thing it is being made out to be.
There are those who believe that this development means that “motorists can now speed with impunity” but whilst it may be true that physical law enforcement is not capable of generating as many fines as automated entrapment is, physical enforcement is nonetheless way more effective. Where delinquent motorists are stopped at the time of the alleged infringement and taken to task immediately this has the bonus effect of preventing the possible consequences that could arise out of non-compliance with speed limits.
The proponents of camera-based “speed enforcement” make claims of it enhancing road safety, whilst simultaneously failing to provide any empirical evidence to support their claims that hidden speed cameras reduce crashes. Instead, what is apparent from the annual reports of entities such as the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) which administers the AARTO Act’s “adjudication procedure” is that the payment rate of fines which are posted is extremely low but is compensated by high volumes.
In the 2015/16 financial year, the RTIA reported that a grand total of R264,261,091 was collected and paid to the four issuing authorities under the AARTO Act in relation to the 6,720,193 infringement notices issued, 82.07% of which were posted.
The RTIA pocketed a further R224,628,726 arising out of its share of the penalties and the fees due to them which were paid. The RTIA does not break its figures down into which issuing authority received what and when, but since the JMPD was responsible for issuing 79.48% of the infringement notices issued in that financial year, it is reasonable to assume that a significant chunk of the revenue collected went to the JMPD.
Traffic law enforcement should never be about generating revenue for Municipalities, agencies and private companies, but sadly, it is and has been for decades. Road safety considerations come a distant last place in the big scheme of things.
“I’m not sure what road safety benefit can be ascribed to ‘pay as you go’ speeding fines which arguably benefit private ‘contractors’ above and beyond anyone else,” said JPSA’s chairperson, Howard Dembovsky.
“Based purely on a casual observation of the behaviour of motorists in Johannesburg, I have not noticed any increase in the incidents of speeding since the withdrawal of the portable speed cameras the JMPD used to deploy,” he concluded.
Participate in our poll here:
The @JMPDSafety ceased deploying HIDDEN speed cameras on 1 March 2017. Have you noticed any increase in speeding in Joburg since then?