JPSA - Justice Project South Africa

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	WEDNESDAY, 22 MAY 2013
SUBJECT:	MISINFORMATION ABOUT AARTO

JOHANNESBURG – It is very unfortunate indeed that an article in the Star Newspaper yesterday has sparked yet another round of conflicting stories and misinformation being disseminated surrounding AARTO and the way in which it is supposed to function.

The article in the Star Newspaper starts out by saying “Joburg motorists won’t be prosecuted for any offence since December 22, and every fine issued since then can be torn up and thrown into the waste-paper bin.”

Whist this particular statement has been rubbished by Deputy Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency it would not be true to say that any of the other information contained in the report was factually incorrect. It is also incorrect for the Deputy Registrar to cite prescription with respect to AARTO infringement notices in isolation of the rest of the AARTO Act.

The article lists a number of issues which demonstrate the monumental failure of the systems and processes enacted by the AARTO Act, all of which are true and should have been sorted out a long time ago, after a voluminous report on the pilot implementation was presented to the then transport Minister, S’bu Ndebele in September 2010. Most of the issues raised in the Star’s report were already apparent before this report was tabled.

The subsequent annual reports from the RTIA, whilst having been fluffed up and decorated to look pretty; clearly demonstrated that it was failing in its mandate to ensure compliance with the payment of AARTO infringement notices. The latest annual report (2012) detailed that a mere 14.04% of AARTO fines are paid, resulting in just 8.83% of the monetary value of those fines being realised.

JPSA has long been saying that the AARTO Act will only work if the systems behind it and the precepts contained in the Act are properly implemented. Transformation in the way in which traffic enforcement is practiced is also key to the successful implementation of AARTO. Since day one, this has not been the case and there is no single entity that has taken any steps to ensure that it is.

From 1 June 2010 to 22 December 2012, the JMPD violated the service requirements of the Act by sending out infringement notices by ordinary mail which effectively negates these infringement notices in terms of the Act. However, the fact that their infringement notices were invalid to start with did not deter them from setting up multiple daily roadblocks in order to intimidate motorists into paying them.

This move by the JMPD effectively divorced the RTIA from the equation, since it was not aware of the vast majority of infringement notices issued by the JMPD. This fact too is contained in the RTIA’s annual report wherein they report some 870 886 notices having been issued by the JMPD in that financial year, when it is a known fact that the JMPD issues more than that amount in less than three months.

To date, all of the unlawfully posted JMPD infringement notices remain live on the JMPD’s systems, despite the fact that it has been made clear by a number of parties, including the Minister of Transport that these infringement notices are illegal. The JMPD continues to mount multiple roadblocks on a daily basis wherein motorists are intimidated into paying these unlawful infringement notices. Additionally, the vast majority of infringement notices issued by the JMPD since February 2009 have not proceeded any further than an infringement notice.

In November 2012, traffic fines Management Company “Fines4U” instituted litigation against the JMPD and others, including the Minister of Transport to gain relief from unlawful JMPD infringement notices and that action is yet to be heard in the South Gauteng High Court. Thus far, all that has happened is that the JMPD has withdrawn the example infringement notices cited in that litigation and left tens of thousands of others issued against the companies represented by the litigant live and active on their systems. Few representations made in the prescribed manner by Fines4U have so much as been processed.

Section 31(2) of the AARTO Act does indeed state in that “the laws on prescription are not applicable to penalties, and they may be collected at any time” however reading or citing this provision in isolation of the rest of the Act is reckless and disingenuous at best.

Sections 17, 19, 20, 21 and 30 of the Act also have relevance and lay down the procedures which MUST be followed in dealing with infringements incurred under the AARTO Act and place legislated responsibilities the Issuing Authority and the RTIA, not just alleged infringers.

Whilst we fully understand that the RTIA is being “nice” in allegedly “halting the AARTO clock” to cater for the postal strike which started in February 2013 and prevailed until sometime in March or April 2013, this does not explain why “any offence since December 22” has not followed the prescripts of the Act, nor does it explain why the same is true of infringement notices issued as far back as 2008.

Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Act is very clear with respect to infringement notices and states that an AARTO 03 infringement notice must be issued and served by registered mail within 40 days of the commission of the alleged infringement. Nowhere in the Act does it state that the RTIA may proceed to steps beyond the infringement notice at any time they choose.

It has been stated by numerous high ranking officials, including but not limited to the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the RTIA, as well as the Minister of Transport that infringement notices sent by ordinary mail are illegal. Surely, if it is going to be claimed that people can simply tear up and bin infringement notices issued since 22 December 2012, then the same should be true about the 9 000 000 or so illegally issued infringement notices the JMPD sent out over a 2½ year period? After all, isn’t keeping them live on the JMPD’s systems and intimidating motorists into paying them tantamount to fraud and extortion?

We also have to ask why it would be deemed necessary to force a private company to spend huge amounts of money litigating against the JMPD and others when it has already been publicly acknowledged that the JMPD has been acting unlawfully.

It is unreasonable of anyone to expect or require people to make representation on AARTO infringement notices issued and sent by ordinary mail, especially in light of the fact that it has now been demonstrated that registered mail has not ensured delivery. What makes anyone think that the post office would treat ordinary mail with greater care and urgency than registered mail is completely beyond us.

It is our contention that all unlawfully issued AARTO infringement notices should be administratively cancelled on the JMPD’s systems without the need for alleged infringers to make representation. As for the infringement notices issued since 22 December 2012, all that needs to be done is for the post office to issue the RTIA with a report on all infringement notices that were not served as required and refund the JMPD and the RTIA for the charges raised on those items. Similarly, the RTIA should administratively cancel all such non-served infringement notices that were affected by the postal strikes, as well as those upon which they have not followed the due processes and learn a lesson from what has happened.

The claim that “some 4 500 traffic officers wasting their time every day” is disingenuous at best, given the fact that less than 1% of the traffic fines issued by the JMPD are for physical moving violations. The JMPD’s primary, almost sole focus is on camera speeding fines that have to be sent by registered mail, instead of immediately served on infringers when they commit traffic offences.

If they were doing their jobs properly and tackling infringers immediately at the time of the commission of various moving violations, including but not limited to speeding, it is arguable that an enormous amount of money would be saved by the authorities in postage fees, with the added bonus that people would actually be stopped for/from committing these offences. The officers themselves would also be gainfully employed, instead of hiding behind bushes, sitting around operating cameras, instead of enforcing road traffic laws.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 10 APRIL 2013
SUBJECT:	eToll prosecution threats puzzling

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa has noted the puzzling statements made by Transport Minister Dikobe Benedict Martins with respect to the progress made with eTolls and in particular his statement that “Sanral will use the Criminal Procedure Act to ensure that commuters on the roads that are part of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project pay their tariffs.”

Fifteen years ago the Department of Transport enacted legislation named the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act; its stated purpose being: “Alleviating the burden on the courts of trying offenders for infringements.” The Act has also been popularly described as one that “decriminalises road traffic infringements”.

The AARTO Act already makes provision for prosecution of “toll dodgers” in Schedule 3 which defines the penalty for driving on a toll road without paying the toll at R250 for motor vehicles not required to have and display an operator card and R500 for those that are required to do so. (Charge codes 3820 and 3821 respectively)

Since a vast proportion of the GFIP freeway infrastructure falls within the jurisdiction of the Johannesburg and Tshwane Metropolitan Police Departments, whose jurisdictions have been subject to AARTO since 2008; it is surprising that the Minister would choose to defy legislation that was enacted by his own department in what seems to be an attempt to introduce an element of fear of criminal prosecution into the eToll saga.

This is of course assuming that the Minister does not intend to scrap AARTO prior to introducing eTolls.

The Minister’s further statement that he is “comfortable that SANRAL will be able to handle the volumes” is moot, given the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act requires Magistrates Courts to adjudicate over matters brought in terms of the Act – not simply issuing a notice in terms of the Act.

The criminal courts system is already clogged and unable to deal with existing traffic matters timeously. Introducing what could conceivably be hundreds of thousands (if not more) additional summonses and cases into them monthly can only be described as completely impractical and for that matter, frivolous.

Once again, this is unless it is the intention of the Minister to have dedicated Courts established to deal with eTolls; where such specialist consideration has not been given to offences like driving under the influence of alcohol which is known to kill thousands of people on our roads annually.

Instead of threatening people with criminal prosecution for taking a stand against the irrational implementation of eTolls, the minister & others would be better advised to rather seek a solution to paying for infrastructure by other means; one of which can be a fuel levy therefor. The argument made by Treasury that “the fuel levy cannot be used since it is not a ring fenced fund” was revealed as being nothing more than a smokescreen when Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan stated in his budget speech that “the fuel levy would increase by 23c per litre, 8c of which would go to the Road Accident Fund.”

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	MONDAY 4 MARCH 2013
SUBJECT:	AARTO AMENDMENT BILL DOESN’T PROPOSE “EMAILED FINES”

JOHANNESBURG – JPSA has noted with alarm, multiple press reports suggesting that an amendment contained in the AARTO Amendment Bill seeks to pave the way for infringement notices to be emailed to alleged infringers.

The insertion of section 17(4A) of the AARTO Amendment Bill reads:

“Where the infringer is a juristic person, an infringement notice may be served electronically on that infringer, who must identify the driver or person responsible for the vehicle at the time the infringement was committed.”

Companies, trusts and other organisations are considered to be “juristic persons” and may register motor vehicles, nominating a proxy and a representative for their organisation.

Nowhere in the proposed amendments is it contemplated that an ordinary motor vehicle owner or driver will have infringement notices delivered to them “by email” and furthermore, the “electronic service” referred to in the Amendment Bill does not specify what type of electronic delivery will be deemed as constituting service.

The insertion of section 17(4A) is apparently intended to facilitate the insertion of section 17(4B) which goes on to say:

“Upon receipt of the electronic nomination, the issuing authority shall serve the infringement notice on the identified driver or person responsible for the vehicle at the time the infringement was committed.”

This amendment is clearly being proposed to facilitate a speedier and less administratively burdensome driver nomination process for companies that operate fleets of motor vehicles where the proxy will rarely be the actual person that is operating the motor vehicle when an infringement is allegedly committed. Electronic service will be of benefit to companies in the case of infringement notices that result from camera fines, etc. where the driver of the vehicle is not stopped at the time so as to facilitate nomination of the driver timeously.

It must be borne in mind that whilst most companies would have access to the internet, email and electronic services, it is estimated that some 11% of South Africa currently access to the internet whilst it has somewhere in the region of 10 million licensed drivers. Electronic service of infringement notices to ordinary motorists would therefore not only be impractical, but physically impossible.

Whilst other amendments with respect to service are contained in this draft of the Amendment Bill, these do not appear impact on the requirement to serve infringement notices that are posted by registered mail. These service requirements are contained in the AARTO regulations which were published for public comment in April 2011. Registered (or secure) mail is and remains a premium service of the South African Post Office and provides much speedier delivery than ordinary mail, as well as a full record of all dates on which notices are sent out and served.

The fact that the JMPD sent out AARTO 03 infringement notices by ordinary mail from 1 June 2010 is and remains unlawful. For a while now, the JMPD has been sending infringement notices by registered (or secure) mail as is required by the Act.

There are a number of other proposed amendments to the AARTO Act contained in the Amendment Bill and Justice Project South Africa will indeed be submitting comments on it prior to the closing date for submissions of 23 March 2013.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER 2012
SUBJECT:	ETOLLS JUDGEMENT SENDS AN OMINOUS MESSAGE

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa wishes to express its sincere regret at the judgement handed down in the North Gauteng High Court today. Notwithstanding that we are disappointed that OUTA lost the challenge, we are infinitely more concerned that Judge Vorster, whilst not being disposed to awarding punitive costs; has according to Eyewitness News, ordered OUTA to pay SANRAL and Treasury’s legal costs.

Given the fact that government has spent what is estimated to be somewhere in the order of R30 million of taxpayers’ money on defending this matter, should OUTA have to pay government’s legal expenses, there is no doubt that OUTA will not be able to do so and this will expose the directors of OUTA to be held responsible in their personal capacities. This will send a very clear message to Non-Governmental Organisations not to take government on in court, regardless of how good their case may be, just in case they lose.

Whilst awarding costs to the winning party in a court challenge is standard practice, each case has its own merits and we are concerned about the ominous message this judgment sends. Since no-one can accurately predict the outcome of any court challenge, the message that is being sent is “don’t screw with government in court or you will be bankrupted”. Another succinct message that is being sent is that you would be better advised to resort to mass action, which may or may not result in public violence, given that protests which have turned violent have not resulted in anyone being held financially liable for the resultant damages incurred.

We note that the Democratic Alliance is calling for a referendum and that COSATU is speaking of further protests on this hugely unpopular eTolling matter. Since we doubt that a “democratic process” like a referendum will take place on this matter, it’s fairly obvious that further protest action will be forthcoming.

Whilst we sincerely hope that the nature of these protests will be peaceful, we have for a very long time warned that the eTolling matter may end up being South Africa’s very own Arab, or more precisely “South African Spring” and we hope that this does not ring true.
Although we refrain from urging people to break the law, we also strongly support the calls made by many not to register for eTolling or buy eTags in order to cripple this extremely unjust system of eTolling.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	SUNDAY 9 DECEMBER 2012
SUBJECT:	JPSA EXPRESSES SURPRISE AT TRANSPORT MINISTER’S STATEMENTS

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa was horrified to hear that Transport Minister, Ben Martins has reportedly stated that “the biggest problem in reducing road carnage in South Africa is that the country relies too heavily on law enforcement” and “it is impossible for traffic officers to police the behaviour of motorists”.

Given the fact that very little traffic law enforcement for moving violations other than speeding takes place in South Africa, it is ridiculous that such a statement should be made. If the Minister of Finance said “it’s impossible for SARS to police tax compliance”, this country would be bankrupt.

If it is not the responsibility of the 17,000 odd traffic officers in this country to enforce traffic law, then exactly whose responsibility is it? South Africa is way beyond “voluntary compliance” with traffic laws and if traffic policing does not change radically for the better in this country, we will not be seeing a 50% reduction on road deaths by 2020, we will be seeing a dramatic increase.

Worldwide, road safety initiatives adopt the “four E’s” of road safety – Education, Engineering, Enforcement and Evaluation. Relegating law enforcement to an unimportant component as has been done today is not only contrary to international best practices, but is grossly irresponsible. We’d also like to learn what Friday’s four-and-a-half hour roadblock held by the JMPD on the N1 North at Samrand Road had to do with road safety, given the fact that we’ve been told motorists were given pamphlets on fireworks.

JPSA is and remains a staunch advocate for road safety, as well as professional and proper traffic policing. You simply cannot excuse improper and corrupt traffic law enforcement by saying “people should comply voluntarily”. Whilst traffic law enforcement authorities continue to generate billions of Rands of camera speeding fines to boost their coffers and profit from the lawlessness on our roads, whilst also turning a blind eye to corruption, nothing is going to improve.
“I would like to invite Minister Martins to engage in a public debate on the importance of professional law enforcement in road safety initiatives”, said JPSA’s Howard Dembovsky. “Whilst I doubt that my invitation will be accepted, it’s worth a shot.”

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER 2012
SUBJECT:	JPSA WELCOMES JUB JUB & TSHABALALA SENTENCE

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa welcomes the sentences handed down to Molemo "Jub Jub" Maarohanye and Themba Tshabalala in the Protea Magistrates Court this afternoon.

It is our hope that the 27 year jail-terms handed down to these two individuals will send a clear message to all who would engage in illegal street racing as well as those driving under the influence of intoxicating substances to refrain from doing so. South Africa has an endemic problem with understanding that intoxicating substances and motor vehicles make for a deadly mix and the time has long since passed that people should view doing so with disgust and condemnation. The same goes with illegal street racing and excessive speeding.

Next year, another drunk driver, Sibusiso Langa will stand trial in the South Gauteng High Court for crashing into 6 joggers in Midrand on 23 October 2011, killing 5 of them. It is our hope that should he be found guilty, he will receive a similar sentence.

At this time, when end of year functions abound and people may be tempted to drive under the influence of alcohol, we would like to urge all to take note of the sobering sentences handed down today and to remember that what happened here could just as easily happen to them.

JPSA advises motorists that the only safe policy when driving is to refrain completely from using intoxicating substances, including alcohol and drugs and to abide by all traffic laws.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2012
SUBJECT:	HOAX EMAILS ON SANRAL eTOLL ISSUES ABOUND

JOHANNESBURG – JPSA has noted that SANRAL has today re-released its “news release” of several months ago in much of its original form; wherein it was stated that the independent investigation commissioned with Deloitte by them has revealed that claims of SANRAL roadblocks were a “hoax”.

We do not wish to discuss the merits of the “independent investigation” commissioned by SANRAL; merely to state that the recent emails doing the rounds are indeed largely hoaxes spread by mischief-makers.

Perhaps SANRAL deemed it necessary to re-release this release due to the fact that, all of a sudden hoax emails making outrageous claims about the controversial eTolling project have again been flooding email inboxes and again, social networks are abuzz with tweets thereon.

JPSA would like to point out that many of these emails are almost direct copies of those that were doing the rounds from February 2012 onwards and we encourage members of the public to check their facts and the sources of those emails before forwarding them instead of “giving legs” to senseless chain letters. In many cases, the alleged authors thereof are either not who they are said to be, or are entirely fictitious.

What is not fictitious however is that the public has up to and including 23 November to comment on the latest government gazettes dealing with tariffs and exemptions. These gazettes are available at www.outa.co.za should members of the public wish to comment.

In the public meetings held by SANRAL last week, SANRAL stated in its presentation that the closing date for submissions of comments is “26 November”, three days after the actual closing date – and this is simply not true.

On 26 November 2012, the Judicial Review of eTolls instituted by OUTA is laid down to be heard in the North Gauteng High Court. Perhaps it is this that SANRAL got confused with the closing date for submissions but only they will know why they misled people in a public forum.

Another relevant and undeniable truth is that COSATU has announced that on Friday 30 November 2012, the eToll roads will be brought to a standstill by public mass action demonstrating against eTolls. Others, like the DA have vowed to make the so-called “alternative routes” impassable at the same time. JPSA fully supports these actions.

Last week’s so-called “public consultations” clearly revealed that the public who attended them don’t want eTolls to be imposed on them, and instead of being limited purely to the contents of the gazettes published by SANRAL and the Department of Transport these meetings turned into verbal protest of the entire eTolling system, not a discussion of those documents as SANRAL had clearly hoped they would be.

Interestingly, none of the public sessions were held in townships, but were held only in upmarket suburbs where it was less likely that less financially-privileged citizens would attend. Fortunately, some spokespersons for the poor did attend and voiced the opinions on behalf of the poor who may have been tempted to hurl rocks and petrol bombs instead of sticking to words alone.

Only time will tell whether eTolls will indeed be forced down the throats of citizens and whether they will be prepared to swallow them.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	WEDNESDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2012
SUBJECT:	PRIVATE ENTERPRISES ILLEGALLY PROFITEERING OUT OF SPEED CAMERAS

TSHWANE – The Star Newspaper has this morning run an article entitled ‘Estates now play traffic cop’, as a result of a joint investigation by JPSA and the Star Newspaper into an operation running in Centurion Residential and Golf Estate in Tshwane.

JPSA has lodged a complaint with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Road Traffic Management Corporation and the Road Traffic Infringement Agency with respect to the illegal and fraudulent actions of the Homeowners Association and KZN-based Licence Plate Recognition CC (trading as I-Cube), who are jointly defrauding members of the public of indeterminable amounts of money.

The National Road Traffic Act, as well as other Acts and the Technical Committee for Standards and Procedures Prosecuting Guidelines govern all law enforcement on South Africa’s roads and whilst many people hold the belief that there is such a thing as a “private road”; in terms of our law there is no such thing. All roads and thoroughfares, whether within a boomed off area, shopping centre or anywhere else to which the public have access, are defined as public roads. Traffic law enforcement may only be practiced by legally appointed local, provincial and national authorities, as well as the South African Police Service.

Any fines issued for contravention of any of the provisions of the National Road Traffic Act must be issued by an authorised traffic authority or the SAPS in strict accordance with either the Criminal Procedure Act or the AARTO Act. Private companies and Homeowners Associations have no authority whatsoever to impose and collect on fines for contravention of traffic law where they are the beneficiary, no matter what they call their demand for payment.

The acting CEO of the RTMC, Collins Letsoalo has issued instruction for an immediate investigation to be instituted by the Anti-Corruption Unit of the RTMC’s National Traffic Police with respect to Mr Barry Fryer Dudley of Licence Plate Recognition CC, however it is almost certain that other parties will also be cited.

Since the story broke this morning, JPSA has received a number of calls and emails from people who have received “traffic fines” issued by private companies and homeowners associations and we are appealing to members of the public to come forward with information, particularly if they have paid any such fines. We have set up a dedicated email address for this purpose and members of the public are encouraged to send an email to estates@jp-sa.org.

The speed camera operations of Licence Plate Recognition CC/I-Cube and the relevant Homeowners Associations have nothing whatsoever to do with enhancing road safety. They have everything to do with making money – unlawfully. Complexes and Estates who wish to slow traffic down should employ physical traffic calming measures which make it impossible for vehicles to speed. Parents in these complexes should also educate their children on basic road safety to prevent them from running in front of vehicles.

It can be argued that speed cameras deployed by traffic authorities similarly contribute nothing to road safety and are instead revenue generation tools. There is however one very big and important difference between the speed cameras in use by traffic authorities and those deployed by private companies. Traffic authorities are allowed by law to deploy them provided they seek authorisation from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Private companies cannot and will not be provided with similar authorisation and therefore, their operations are both illegal and fraudulent.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER 2012
SUBJECT:	JPSA’S FEELINGS ON eTOLLING ANNOUNCEMENT

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa has noted the announcements and claims made by the Minister of Transport and SANRAL today and we are shocked by the spin that is being put on the supposed lowered tariffs.

Government gazette 35263 of 13 April 2012 contained the identical tariffs contained in government gazette 35263 of 25 October 2012 (not today). The comparisons between the 2011 announced tariff of 66c/km now being referred to as being 30c/km discounted rates are misleading since it is in fact 58c/km for class B vehicles (motor cars etc.) and this has not changed at all since Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan announced this in his budget speech in February 2012. Similarly, the “capped amount” has not changed since then either.

Today it was announced by Minister Martins that “today marks the beginning of a 30 day consultation period”, which is not strictly true given that the 30 day period started yesterday (25 October) and the gazette gives 30 days from publication date for written comments to be submitted, thus leaving 29 days from today for this to happen.

The Judicial Review of eTolling is still laid down for 26 November 2012, and as much as Wayne Duvenage from OUTA has said that “no-one can predict its outcome”, it would appear that Cabinet knows something that we don’t with respect to what the outcome will be, before it even comes before the court. This despite the public having been specifically excluded from having sight of the contract/s between SANRAL and ETC, and even OUTA has not received full disclosure of the contract provided to them, on the premise that the contract contains “Intellectual Property”.

In addition we would like to know how the “public consultation process” referred to today now miraculously differs in any way from the previous “consultations” that took place since it is clear that those processes were mere window dressing for a pre-determined outcome and there is nothing to suggest that the latest round will be any different.

This having been said, it is our sincere hope that members of the public will take the time to comment on the two government gazette notices issued for comment yesterday.

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2012
SUBJECT:	FAULTY RANDBURG SPEED CAMERA ISSUE RESOLVED

JOHANNESBURG – On Wednesday 3 October 2012, Justice Project South Africa wrote to Director Gerneke at the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) to draw his attention to an apparently defective speed and red light camera in Republic Road, Randburg and to seek a solution which would not place a huge administrative burden on members of the public that had been affected by it.

On Tuesday 16 October, JPSA met with Director Gerneke at the JMPD’s offices in Selby where the results of an investigation by the JMPD and their contractor were shown to us and it was revealed that this problem resulted from an intermittent software fault which caused speed calculations to be incorrectly calculated.

As a result of our complaint and the investigation that ensued, the JMPD has informed us that the following will take place:

All infringement notices resulting from the fault at this specific site incurred from 1 July 2012 to 31 August 2012 will be administratively cancelled by the JMPD.
This will apply to both, infringement notices recorded on eNaTIS and the JMPD’s own proprietary system.
All persons who have already paid these fines will be contacted by the JMPD and will be refunded the monies which they have paid.
No affected person will be expected to complete and submit an AARTO 08 representation form as this will be an automated process.

The camera in question is based on the corner of Republic Road and the entrance to Brightwater Commons when travelling east to west, from Randburg City centre towards Malibongwe Drive and applies ONLY to this particular fixed camera in this direction and not to any other speed and red light cameras. Infringement notices issued at this site state that the location was “Republic Road cnr Waterfront Entrance East to West”.

JPSA is delighted with the positive outcome that has resulted from this matter and would like to thank Director Gerneke and the JMPD for the proactive remedy that is being applied to it.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER 2012
SUBJECT:	OUTCOME OF MOLEMA “JUB JUB”MAAROHANYE & THEMBA TSHABALALA TRIAL WELCOMED

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa is delighted to hear that the charges of murder and attempted murder brought against Molema "Jub Jub" Maarohanye and Themba Tshabalala by the National Prosecuting Authority have resulted in their conviction.

We must admit that at first we were not confident that this approach would be successful, but it is clear that a very well formulated and executed case for the prosecution was presented; leading to these convictions and we extend our sincere congratulations to the NPA.

It is our hope that the outcome of this trial will send a clear message to all motorists to understand the severe implications that driving in a reckless manner can have for all concerned. Whilst sentencing will only take place on 30 November 2012 and is bound to be “harsh”, nothing will reverse the enormous human tragedy that resulted from the actions of these two men.

Daily in South Africa, an average of 38 people die on our roads and this situation has prevailed for way too long now. It is high time that South African motorists started taking care over how they exercise control over their motor vehicles and stopped engaging in dangerous practices including but not limited to driving under the influence of intoxicating substances, reckless or negligent driving and driving way too fast.

Whilst this case is a triumph for our justice system, it is also our hope that law enforcement agencies begin to take seriously the need for concerted and consistent enforcement of traffic laws as part of the mix in bringing about greater compliance and a reduction in road fatalities. As much as a guilty verdict on charges of murder for a heinous road crime such as this should be applauded, a gram of prevention is infinitely more valuable than a kilogram of cure.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	THURSDAY 20 September 2012
SUBJECT:	JPSA’s REACTION TO CON-COURT RULING ON eTOLLS INTERDICT APPEAL

JOHANNESBURG – It is with sincere regret and disappointment that Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) has noted the successful outcome of Treasury’s appeal on the interdict granted against SANRAL and eTolls in the judgment handed down in the Constitutional Court today.

As much as government doesn’t like being interdicted by a court from acting in stark contrast to popular public sentiment, it is our belief that the alternative to such Court Processes is far worse. Although the events which played themselves out in Marikana were aimed at Lonmin, it must be remembered that public disobedience over eTolling as threatened by COSATU earlier this year could very easily take on a similar tone with the eTolls issue.

We believe that this ruling sets a very negative precedent; showing that citizens who are stonewalled by government may not turn to the courts for relief, whilst those who resort to violence get what they want – or at least close thereto.

We will see if SANRAL will be able to implement eTolling within two weeks as stated in arguments in court in August and we will have to wait and see whether citizens roll over and cough up, but one thing is for sure, today is a very sad day for the voice of the people whom democratic processes and now the courts have failed.

The judicial review of the eTolling matter will obviously have to take its course and we believe that efforts to find alternative ways to pay for infrastructure development must still be urgently sought. There can be no doubt that infrastructure must be maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis as our vehicle population traffic volumes increase but we maintain the stance that ring-fencing cities and tolling people is not the way to go.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

TO:	ALL NEWS, TRANSPORT AND CRIME EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012
SUBJECT:	FRAUDULENT USE OF MOBILE SPEED CAMERAS

JOHANNESBURG – Recent sightings, photographs and video material of speed cameras being operated in various areas, including two DA run Municipalities, which are being used in a fraudulent and illegal manner have once again highlighted the way in which Municipalities are happy to engage in unlawful practices in order to generate what they view as a form of taxation of motorists who exceed the speed limit in their jurisdictions.

On Thursday 23, Friday 24 and Sunday 26 August 2012, three masterfully camouflaged mobile speed cameras were photographed in the Midvaal Local Municipality’s in separate locations, all of which saw military grade camouflage netting masterfully wrapped around them. What’s more no traffic officers were anywhere to be found operating this equipment and in one instance, two technicians from Mavambo ITS; the company that was recently awarded the tender to provide Midvaal with speed cameras arrived to check on their equipment. The technicians uplifted and redeployed their equipment shortly afterwards.

The Technical Committee for Standards and Procedures (TCSP) prosecution guidelines are very clear with respect to the use of speed measuring equipment and state that mobile speed measuring equipment – i.e. speed measuring equipment which is not permanently installed must be operated by a qualified and permanently employed traffic officer who is additionally in possession of a valid operator’s certificate for the specific equipment in use.

Automated operations where there is no operator present must have the Speed Measuring Equipment permanently secured. Section 1.8(a)(i) of the TCSP guidelines clearly states that “only speed measuring or traffic light violation monitoring equipment installed in a permanently secured housing may be used for automated operations for prosecution of speed violations and/or traffic light violations.”

Recently, TMT Services (Pty) Ltd was caught up in a scandal Mpumalanga where the Advocate George Baloyi of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) ordered that the unattended and/or security guarded, automated use of speed cameras operated by TMT Services (Pty) Ltd be ceased. Mavambo ITS has listed as one of directors ex-employee of TMT Services.

It is our understanding that Mr Anthony Benadie of the Democratic Alliance in Mpumalanga has lodged a complaint with the Offices of the Public Protector which complaint furthermore seeks the refund of over R60 million in fines paid by members of the public who received these unlawful fines. It seems rather disingenuous for the DA to seek such relief in an area where they do not run the Provincial/Municipal authority concerned and then to engage in the almost identical modus operandi in their own Municipal areas.

But it is not only Midvaal where unmanned mobile speed cameras are being used in automated mode. Cape Town too has been reported as engaging in this practice, although it would appear that in the case of Cape Town, the equipment is set up by a traffic officer who then goes and sits in their vehicle parked some 30 metres down another road. This too is illegal, despite the fact that a traffic officer sets it up, since the speed measuring equipment is used in an automated mode and is not installed in a permanently secured housing.

The City of Cape Town passed a Council Resolution in 2007 (Traffic Violation Camera Policy C 06-07-07) wherein its policy on concealment says:

“3.3.4 Concealment
Mobile camera enforcement by its very nature involves at times a degree of concealment. This could be as a result of such practicalities as ensuring the safety of the operator, vehicle and/or the camera. Every attempt must be made not to be excessive or over imaginative in this regard and mobile camera enforcement must be visible by approaching motorists at least thirty (30) metres from the point where the enforcement occurs.”

Whilst it could be argued that over imaginative practices are not employed in Cape Town, since they don’t go the whole hog and shroud their equipment in camo netting, they most certainly are in Midvaal and it is not clear whether Midvaal has a similar policy to that of Cape Town or not. However, it is an unarguable fact that traffic enforcement should be about achieving greater road safety and not about making money. Clearly, the Midvaal Municipality is of a different opinion.

The practice of deploying camouflaged, unmanned, automated mobile speed measuring equipment in the Midvaal area has apparently been occurring for somewhere in the region of two months now and popular deployment sites we have now come to know of are Henley Drive in Henley on Klip, Morris Road in Meyerton and under the Randvaal Bridge on the R59 Danie Joubert Freeway.

JPSA has published full information, photographs and video on its website at www.jp-sa.org to assist motorists who have received fines from the Midvaal Traffic Department to identify if they have been affected by the issue of illegal fines. We have also made arrangements for anyone who has received such fines to register criminal dockets of fraud against the perpetrators of this fraud and full details are provided at our website.

Howard Dembovsky, Chairman of JPSA said “We have maintained our standpoint since day one that traffic enforcement should be about enforcing all traffic laws, in as visible a fashion as possible, with a view to increasing compliance and reducing road fatalities and should not be about making money. Nothing will alter our view that portable camera speed prosecution has become a filthy dirty way of generating massive revenues for municipalities and contrators who have clearly shown that they are not interested in anything other than making money. Where fraud is detected, we will not hesitate in assisting members of the public to bring criminal charges against the entities who try to defraud them.”

JPSA has written to the DA leadership to express its disgust at the engagement in criminally fraudulent traffic fine practices that have emerged. JPSA has not ruled out the possibility of lodging a complaint with the Public Protector should the leadership of the DA not address the issue satisfactorilly, however we will give this process a fair chance to be addressed before further burdening the already overburdened Office of the Public Protector.

Issued by: Howard Dembovsky

References:

The following documents and sections have reference:

Prosecuting Guidelines for Speed Measuring Equipment and Traffic Light Violation Monitoring Equipment March 2012

Section 1.1
Section 1.6
Section 1.8

City of Cape Town Council resolution C 07-06-07 Traffic Violation Camera Policy of 27 June 2007

Section 3.3.3
Section 3.3.4
Please note that this policy may have been updated but to our knowledge it is current.

Criminal Procedure Act 51, 1977

(1)(a) The Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare that any person who, by virtue of his office, falls within any category defined in the notice, shall, within an area specified in the notice, be a peace officer for the purpose of exercising, with reference to any provision of this Act or any offence or any class of offences likewise specified, the powers defined in the notice.

(2)(a) No person who is a peace officer by virtue of a notice issued under subsection (1) shall exercise any power conferred upon him under that subsection unless he is at the time of exercising such power in possession of a certificate of appointment issued by his employer, which certificate shall be produced on demand.

(b) A power exercised contrary to the provisions of paragraph (a) shall have no legal force or effect.

Context and import of this provision:

Only a lawfully appointed peace officer may issue a fine for a traffic offence. Technicians employed by private companies are not peace officers and therefore have no legal right to issue traffic fines.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	SATURDAY 11 AUGUST 2012
SUBJECT:	LICENSING TRANSACTION BLOCKING IS ILLEGAL

JOHANNESBURG – Reports by SAPA quoting Director Gerrie Gerneke once again levelling threats against motorists are misleading and once again shows the tendency for Gerneke and the JMPD to engage in unsubstantiated threats against motorists. Gerneke was quoted as saying “You will not be able to renew your car registration, no new vehicles can be registered, you will not be able to renew your licence or apply for a licence in a different class,” in response to the fact that AARTO infringement notices sent by ordinary mail have been ignored by motorists.

In terms of section 20 of the AARTO Act, licensing transactions may indeed be blocked on the eNaTIS system if and when an Enforcement Order is issued by the Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA). This will happen if an alleged infringer ignores both, an infringement notice and a courtesy letter which have both been lawfully served by registered mail in terms of the Act. However, infringement notices issued by the JMPD and sent by ordinary mail since June 2010 have never proceed to the later stages of the AARTO process; simply because they have not been served in compliance with the Act.

The JMPD may, in terms of the AARTO Act, issue infringement notices only and any subsequent notices must be issued and served by the Registrar of the RTIA. In the absence of an Enforcement Order, or in the case of the Criminal Procedure Act, a warrant of arrest, licensing transactions may not be withheld and if and licensing authority does do so, it would be violating both the AARTO Act and the National Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, if one examines the R114 statement of account from a licensing authority, it quite clearly states as much.

JPSA does warn however that infringement notices served by registered mail are indeed lawful and will lead to the subsequent processes under the AARTO Act if they are ignored. Claims made by Wayne Minnaar in another report on SABC saying that “if traffic infringement notices are served by registered mail, the community is not aware that it is for a traffic offense, as a registered document does not indicate that it is for traffic violation, and what we then find is the community forfeits the 50% discount if the fine is not paid within 32 days” is an absolute lie.

Notices to collect AARTO infringement notices state precisely that the document the person is supposed to collect is an AARTO infringement notice. Furthermore, the 50% discount period starts from the date of service of the infringement notice – not the date of the alleged infringement. If a person does not sign for the service of an infringement notice, then how exactly does Minnaar think that the “AARTO clock” is started?

Minnaar has also made claims that no-one has been arrested for outstanding AARTO fines. Minnaar is being economical with the truth in that he seems to be unaware of what constitutes unlawful detention. The officers at the JMPD roadblocks set up all over Johannesburg on a daily basis frequently disallow motorists from continuing on their journey unless they pay their fines there and then. Threats of arrest are used on a frequent basis and motorists are regularly intimidated by these so-called law enforcement officials and this practice is yet another example of the JMPD’s willingness to break the law.

Both Gerneke and Minnaar are very fond of misleading the public with outright lies designed to intimidate people and they appear to think that their invalid arguments must simply be swallowed because the public is generally not up to speed with the intricacies of the law.

JPSA awaits the findings of the Public Protector’s office to put an end to this childish debate however the Minister of Transport has already acknowledged in Parliament that the JMPD is acting unlawfully in terms of the AARTO Act.

The pig-headedness of Director Gerneke and his cohorts at the JMPD is unbelievable and it is a shame that this debate should even have arisen, given that law enforcement agencies are supposed to enforce the law, not break it to suit their own pockets.

Contact people to confirm the legalities of what has been said in this statement:

Mr Japh Chuwe – Registrar of the RTIA – japhc@rtia.co.za
Mr Sherman Amos – Deputy Registrar of the RTIA – shermana@rtia.co.za
Howard Dembovsky may also be contacted for further comment.

Reference articles:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/08/11/pay-your-traffic-fines-or-have-trouble-renewing-your-licence-report
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/ce91e2004c4e75018fd69f3f0b660f76/Let-the-JMPD-arrest-you-20121108

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 7 AUGUST 2012
SUBJECT:	TRANSPORT MINISTER CONFIRMS THAT JMPD IS ACTING ILLEGALLY

JOHANNESBURG – The Minister of Transport has responded to a Parliamentary question brought by the Freedom Front Plus wherein it was asked whether the AARTO infringement notices were being served lawfully as is required by Section 30 of the AARTO Act, or not. It was further asked whether or not the Minister of Transport had sought legal opinion on the legal implications of serving infringement notices contrary to the Act.

This question was asked in writing and for written reply of former Minister of Transport, Sibusiso Ndebele on Friday 9 March, 2012 and written response thereto was received on 6 August 2012. By the context of the reply, it is clear that the response was authored by Sibusiso Ndebele, although it was presented by the new Minister, Mr Ben Martins.

In his reply, the Minister of Transport stated that:

The Department of Transport was aware of the fact that the JMPD have been sending out infringement notices by ordinary mail. The exact statement made was “In order to limit postage costs, Johannesburg authorities issued the first notice by ordinary mail by means of an AARTO 03 form. This was to be followed up by a notice by registered mail.”

The claim that “This was to be followed up by a notice by registered mail” never materialised. No such follow-up notices have ever been sent by the JMPD and this is not in the least bit difficult to prove given that the “RA Numbers” applicable to the relevant infringement notices are blank on the JMPD’s TMT Services system.
It is nonsensical to state that sending out a preliminary (first) notice by ordinary mail and then following it up with a registered mail item would “limit postage costs”. If anything, this would increase postage costs. This lame argument was originally used early on in 2010 by those in the JMPD trying to justify their actions, but it has evolved over time.

The reply goes on to say “However, regulation 3(1) determines that the infringement notice must be served by registered mail within 40 days from the date of infringement…” but then somewhere along the line, the train of thought seems to have evaporated.

The JMPD has been sending AARTO 03 infringement notices by ordinary mail since 1 June 2010 and since then, almost 20 multiples of 40 days have elapsed without a single infringement notice running on the TMT Services system ever being served in terms of the prescripts of the Act.
The re-issue and service of these notices by registered mail at any juncture post 40 days from the date of the alleged infringement would be similarly unlawful.

The reply further goes on to state “However, Johannesburg has recently secured funds for the posting of infringement notices by registered mail and it is believed that Johannesburg will use the eNaTIS and serve infringement notices by registered mail as from April 2012”.

It is this statement which demonstrates that the response was authored at some time prior to April 2012, when Ndebele was still Minister of Transport.
It is now August 2012, and to date the JMPD continues to send out AARTO 03 infringement notices by ordinary mail.
It is true that infringement notices captured by MVS Phumelelo (Pty) Ltd and Syntell (Pty) Ltd are being captured on the eNaTIS system, however those captured by TMT Services (Pty) Ltd on their own system continue to be sent by ordinary mail.
Infringement notices registered on the eNaTIS system start with 02-4049, 02-4099 or 02-4052. These are typically sent by registered mail as is required by the Act and the penalty (fine) amount for a juristic entity will be identical to that which an ordinary person would incur. There will additionally be no banking details on the reverse of the infringement notice and the alleged infringer will have to pay the RTIA by means of visiting the Post Office or Bank.
Infringement notices recorded on the TMT Services (Pty) Ltd system on the other hand start with 02-4024, will arrive by ordinary mail and the penalty amount for juristic persons will be triple that applicable to natural persons. These notices bear the banking details of the JMPD itself and the RTIA will not see a cent of the monies paid into it – ever.

In response to whether the Department of Transport had sought legal advice on the service issue, the Minister responded: “…legal opinion on the implications of serving traffic offence notices in a format other than the one prescribed by the Act was not obtained, as Section 30(1) and Regulation 3(1) of the AARTO Act are clear that an infringement notice must be served either in person or by registered mail.” It further went onto say: “The Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) and I are of the opinion that the legislation is clear and that a legal opinion is not required to clarify exact legislation.”

The response by the Minister of Transport therefore begs the question: if both the Minister of Transport and the Registrar of the RTIA know that the Act is clear and that the JMPD is not acting within the prescripts of it, then why have they done nothing to bring a halt to the unlawful practices of the JMPD? Is it the standpoint of the Minister and the Registrar that a law enforcement agency acting unlawfully is perfectly acceptable in South Africa?

It is a commonly known fact that the JMPD forces people to pay these unlawful fines on a daily basis in their roadblocks and in doing so engages in the crime of racketeering as they use extortion by means of the threats of arrest to extort these monies from motorists.

The complaint laid with the Public Protector by Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) in June 2011 is yet to be finalised by the Public Protector and we have been informed that this will happen “soon”. This was lodged after multiple engagements with the JMPD, RTMC and RTIA failed to achieve any tangible results.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

The original content of the Parliamentary question and answer appears below:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
FOR WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO 542
DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 06 AUGUST 2012
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 09 MARCH 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 7 – 2012)

542. Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether, during the test period in which the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO/APBO), Act 46 of 1998, was put into action in Johannesburg and Pretoria, traffic offence notices were served on alleged offenders (a) by registered mail and/or (b) in person; if not, in which city are the instructions, as contained in section 30 of the Act, not adhered to; if so, what (i) systems or (ii) authorities are used to serve traffic offence notices on alleged offenders by registered mail and/or in person;

(2) whether he sought legal opinion on the implications of serving traffic offence notices in a format other than the one prescribed by the Act; if so, what was the opinion; if not,

(3) whether he intends to seek legal opinion on the matter; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW697E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:
(1) (a) and (b) (i) and (ii)

Infringement notices in terms of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO), 1998 (Act No. 46 of 1998), were served in person by means of an AARTO 01 form in both Tshwane and Johannesburg. Infringement notices for camera infringements were served by registered mail by means of an AARTO 03 form in Tshwane. In order to limit postage costs, Johannesburg authorities issued the first notice by ordinary mail by means of an AARTO 03 form. This was to be followed up by a notice by registered mail. However, regulation 3(1) determines that the infringement notice must be served by registered mail within 40 days from the date of infringement and the required funds to serve the notices by registered mail could not be secured. In both cases, the South African Post Office (SAPO) is used as the service provider to serve or deliver the infringement notices.

Tshwane uses the National Traffic Information System (eNaTIS) for the processing of all its infringement notices, whilst Johannesburg uses the eNaTIS system since July 2011 for the processing of its personally served AARTO 01 infringement notices. Johannesburg uses systems as provided by its sub-contractors for the delivery of camera infringement notices by ordinary mail. However, Johannesburg has recently secured funds for the posting of infringement notices by registered mail and it is believed that Johannesburg will use the eNaTIS and serve infringement notices by registered mail as from April 2012.

(2) A legal opinion on the implications of serving traffic offence notices in a format other than the one prescribed by the Act was not obtained, as Section 30(1) and Regulation 3(1) of the AARTO Act are clear that an infringement notice must be served either in person or by registered mail.

(3) The Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) and I are of the opinion that the legislation is clear and that a legal opinion is not required to clarify exact legislation.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 7 AUGUST 2012
SUBJECT:	SALGA PROVES THAT MUNICIPALITIES VIEW TRAFFIC FINES AS TAXATION

JOHANNESBURG – Recent reports saying that SALGA has blamed the AARTO Act for the so-called "losses in traffic fine income" experienced by the JMPD, TMPD and EMPD have again highlighted the corrupt nature of traffic enforcement in South Africa.

Justice Project South Africa wishes to voice its disgust over the attitude that has been adopted by the Municipalities of South Africa, represented by the South African Local Government Association (SALGA); who have clearly come to believe that traffic law enforcement is about making money – not ensuring road safety.

The so-called “loss/shortfall” of R208 million of the R460 million budgeted as an income from traffic fines by the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department in the 2011/2012 financial year is cited as a “reason” for the AARTO Act to be scrapped. What this flawed argument fails to acknowledge is that:

Only a very small proportion of the infringement notices issued by the JMPD are issued on the eNaTIS system which forms part of the AARTO process and therefore the AARTO Act has little or no influence over the outcome of the issue or collection of these fines.
Infringement notices issued on the eNaTIS system follow the AARTO process, wherein a Courtesy Letter and subsequently, an Enforcement Order is issued if the infringer does not pay within the first 32 days but the JMPD has purposefully isolated itself from this system.
The vast majority of AARTO infringement notices issued by the JMPD are issued on a system developed for the JMPD by TMT Services and these infringement notices are therefore in no way associated with the AARTO processes as they NEVER proceed beyond an infringement notice.
Regardless of the stage at which an infringement should be in the AARTO process, the JMPD pockets 100% of all of the revenue on AARTO traffic fines they issue on the TMT system. Only 50% of the penalty value is payable to the issuing authority at any stage in the AARTO process, but the JMPD fraudulently pockets monies due to them as well as monies due to the RTIA in terms of the Act.
Since 1 June 2010, the JMPD have arrogantly disposed of the prescript of section 30(1) of the AARTO Amendment Act and regulation 3(1)(b) of the AARTO regulations which requires that all documents required to be served in terms of the Act must be served in person or by REGISTERED MAIL. The JMPD sends most of its infringement notices by ordinary mail instead.
People have no doubt become wise to the unlawful behaviour of the JMPD over the past two years and have realised that since the JMPD cannot prove that they have lawfully served infringement notices on them, NOTHING can or will happen if they simply ignore them. This would explain the so-called “loss” way better than the lame excuse that SALGA and the JMPD have come up with.
The JMPD has therefore been the master of its own destiny and in typical form now wishes to blame everyone and everything other than themselves for their own criminal actions and shortcomings.

It is not clear just what the Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department’s alleged loss of R50 million has to do with AARTO, given that to date; only the JMPD and TMPD are and have been involved in the so-called “pilot” of AARTO whilst Ekurhuleni has not been included.

With respect to the obvious admission by SALGA that traffic “enforcement” is viewed as a financial entitlement to fund Municipalities, JPSA would like to thank the collective Municipalities who are members of SALGA for confirming what we have been saying for years. It is quite clear from the examples cited that traffic enforcement is viewed by Municipalities as nothing more than a source of taxation to generate large amounts of revenue for them, whether such generation is lawful or not and whether it improves road safety or not.

Logically, should traffic law enforcement be successful in achieving greater compliance with traffic laws, this would greatly damage the bottom line of the Municipalities who have come to believe that motorists’ bad behaviour on our roads is nothing more than an excuse for them to make money by giving people permission to break the law, so long as they pay the Municipalities money to do so.

It is clear that the AARTO Act is most certainly in direct conflict with the agendas of Municipalities, given that a points-demerit system would almost certainly diminish the pool of “taxable” motorists, and given that the suspension of their driving licenses is intended to remove delinquent motorists from our roads. The fact that road fatalities cost the fiscus somewhere in the order of R40 billion and the economy over R200 billion per annum seems to be of no concern to SALGA and the Municipalities that belong to it and it is very sad indeed to see that they are prepared to demand the scrapping of legislation that could address some of the carnage on our roads so as to continue to line their collective pockets.

Background material:

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, CRIME AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	THURSDAY 24 MAY 2012
SUBJECT:	RTMC’S “WOZA RE-TEST” FLAWED

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa has noted the contents of the media release from the Road Traffic Management Corporation dated Wednesday, 23 May 2012 and entitled “RTMC TO ROLL OUT PROJECT WOZA RE-TEST” and would like to offer the following comments thereon.

Whilst it may appear encouraging that the RTMC is seemingly finally taking a proactive stance on road safety in accordance with the United Nations Decade of Action for Road Safety programme, it is disappointing to see them openly and fragrantly misquoting the sections of the National Road Traffic Act which apply to suspension of driving licences, as well as their apparent second-guessing of our judicial system.

Section 25 of the National Road Traffic Act deals with the executive powers of the CEO of the RTMC to, after following due processes as described in the body of this release, suspend or cancel the driving licence of a person who he or she deems to be a dangerous driver. It is this section that has been quoted in the RTMC’s media release as being relevant to a list of offences in that release and this is factually incorrect.

Section 35 of the National Road Traffic Act makes it mandatory for a judge or magistrate to suspend driving licenses of convicted persons for a minimum period of 6 months on first conviction, five years on the second and 10 years for the third for offences under Sections 59, 61, 63 and 65 of the National Road Traffic Act. This is the duty of the courts although the discretion of the court may be exercised in not imposing such a suspension “if it is satisfied that circumstances relating to the offence exist which do not justify the suspension or disqualification referred to”. It is this section of the National Road Traffic Act that is incorrectly referred to as being part of Section 25 of the Act in the RTMC’s release.

It now seems that the RTMC wishes to take the law into its own hands, instead of engaging with the Department of Justice to get a directive rolled out for members of the judiciary to take this provision seriously. Unfortunately, the courts have routinely not been enforcing such suspensions since Section 35 of the National Road Traffic Act was proclaimed as being in force from November 2010.

It is alarming to note that the RTMC has chosen to exclude Section 61 of the Act which deals with failing to stop to ascertain the extent of injuries of other persons (hit and run) after a crash (where death or serious injury is involved) in its list of offences and has instead decided to include “inconsiderate driving” which falls under Section 64 of the Act, trying to make it one and the same as “reckless or negligent driving” which falls under Section 63 of the Act. The charge of, “inconsiderate driving” is scheduled as one of the most minor infringements that can be committed by any motorist under charge code 5602 of schedule 3 of the AARTO Regulations, which carries a fine of R250 (discounted to R125) and no demerit-points, so it is questionable why the RTMC would not know this.

Whilst the idea to re-test all persons who have been convicted of the very serious traffic offences scheduled under Section 35 of the National Road Traffic Act, retrospective to 1 January 2012, is a seemingly good idea and JPSA fully supports the notion that mandatory driver re-testing should become a feature of South African Traffic Law, we do question how well thought out this particular project is if the RTMC has managed to misquote the very legislation that it was formed to oversee and seeks to act upon.

Furthermore, we fail to understand why the proviso: “Convicted offenders will be given fourteen working days in which to explain why his/her license should not be suspended pending the outcome of a re-test of both the learner’s and driving licenses” would be in the least bit necessary. Surely if a person fails a driving test their licence should be suspended until they can pass; and surely if they pass, there would be no reason to again plead for their driving licence not to be suspended, if a court has already determined that it should not be?

We also have to question why it is that this announcement has been made with no further mention of the nationwide rollout of AARTO, which is supposed to seek to impose demerit-points on driving licences on a gradient basis, thereby not waiting for people to commit serious traffic offences prior to doing something about their driving habits and which has been postponed over and over again, with no end in sight. This is a project that the RTMC was tasked with rolling out four years ago and they have not managed to do so or oversee its correct and lawful implementation in Johannesburg and Tshwane and yet they seek to now go off at a new tangent.

The further announcement to the effect that “shortly, the RTMC will also be partnering with a private sector company to offer driver education classes at no cost” also comes as a huge surprise to us, given the fact that no private sector company would provide such services for free and no tender that we can detect has been announced at any stage by the RTMC for the provision of this service.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	THURSDAY 17 May 2012
SUBJECT:	JPSA’s REACTION TO ANNOUNCEMENT – GOVERNMENT TO APPEAL eTOLLS INTERDICT

JOHANNESBURG – It is with disappointment that JPSA has learned that it is the intent of Cabinet to appeal the interdict on the eTolling matter, despite SANRAL stating that they would not. Whilst appeal is most certainly the right of anyone, including Cabinet, it is sad to see that in the face of such overwhelming public opposition to the unjustifiably high cost eToll method of collecting monies to pay for the GFIP roads, government is persisting with its stance that this a “done deal” and we are just going to “have to” accept it.

The stance proclaiming “eTolling as an efficient mechanism of collection” is nonsensical since one of the key points of Judge Prinsloo’s interdict was that non-compliance by road users would cause an administrative nightmare in pursuing non-payment, with huge numbers of summonses having to be processed on a daily basis. We also need to ask whether the intention to appeal the interdict has anything to do with an attempt to halt a full enquiry into the project in order to cover up possible corruption or not.

Whether the requirements for the “consultative processes” were met or not, we believe that this issue provides the ideal platform for the first ever referendum in the history of our democracy and we call on government to have the guts to put this matter to a vote as soon as possible since demonstrations, vocal outrage and court judgements don’t seem to count for much.

We are NOT for one second suggesting that roads must not be paid for, much less that they should not be paid for by motorists, but we are still of the belief that a ring-fenced fuel levy will achieve the objectives of paying for these roads and others still to come in a far more efficient and less costly manner. The “user pays” principle is all well and good and would be achieved by a fuel levy, unless of course it is being said that the Gauteng freeways will be the beginning and end of roads infrastructure development in South Africa, unless all roads eventually become toll roads.

Furthermore, if the “user pays” principle is to be adopted in this manner, then government should immediately refund all monies spent on the Gautrain and BRT projects to the fiscus and recover the costs thereof from the users of those services.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 8 MAY 2012
SUBJECT:	JPSA WELCOMES RESIGNATION OF NAZIR ALLI

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) welcomes the resignation of Mr Nazir Alli as the CEO of the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SOC), presumably over the eTolling debacle that has evoked such huge public outrage in recent months.

Whilst Mr Alli’s dictatorial and often aggressive style has angered many over the years, it is interesting to note that SANRAL has stated that it will not entertain any further comment beyond their media announcement issued today. This openly shows that Mr Alli’s claims to the effect that he was merely implementing the policy of his employers where not only true but stands as a clear indictment that SANRAL has no intention of changing its ways when it comes to communication.

It must also be remembered that the tactics employed recently, with rushed legislative changes and the most recent announcement of the “delay” by one month of the implementation of eTolls on the day of conclusion of legal arguments in the North Gauteng High Court did not come from SANRAL or Mr Alli, but from top management of the Department of Transport itself.

Although Mr Alli has indeed done the “honourable thing” by resigning, we must be careful not to allow the eTolls issue to be turned into a personal thing about one man, who was admittedly the driving force behind it but was certainly not the be all and end all of it. We must remain mindful that nothing that he did could have been done without the sanction and support of other parties, not least of which was the Department of Transport and people within its top management.

His resignation does not spell the “death knoll” of the eTolling issue, but merely represents the removal of a single hurdle to progress on the resolution of this matter. The roads still need to be paid for, but a better funding model that does not threaten the livelihoods of citizens must be found and it must be found soon.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	SUNDAY 22 APRIL 2012
SUBJECT:	E-TOLL EXEMPTIONS TO APPLY ONLY TO GOVERNMENT MEDICAL EMERGENCY VEHICLES

JOHANNESBURG – On Wednesday 18 April 2012, the Department of Transport published in Government Gazette No 35148 a proposed amendment to the SANRAL draft regulations to cater for exemptions to the eTolls to be imposed on Johannesburg and Pretoria’s freeways. This gazette has been published for public comment, once again providing only 20 days for such comments to be made; one third less than is usual.

It is pertinent to note that should eTolling go ahead on 30 April 2012, there will be no exemption mechanism in place at launch for public, scholar and minibus taxi transportation or emergency vehicles, given the fact that the closing date for comments will be 7 May 2012 if 18 April is included as one of the 20 days allocated for comment.

The intent of this gazette is to deal with exemption of emergency vehicles as well as public transportation vehicles previously left out of the draft regulations published on 27 March 2012. Whilst it seeks to exempt marked law enforcement vehicles operated by the SAPS, Provincial Authorities, EMPD, JMPD and TMPD, it does not exempt law enforcement vehicles operated by the National Traffic Police, SANRAL, or those vehicles used by SAPS detectives and this in itself bears testimony to the sloppy way in which these regulations have been drafted.

It is also noted that the definition of medical emergency vehicles specifically excludes private ambulance and rescue services since this exemption is proposed to exempt only Provincial and Municipal rescue vehicles and ambulances. Given that a high proportion of crashes on these freeways are primarily attended to by private medical emergency companies, it is untenable that they are apparently being discriminated against by this draft.

Application for exemption of “public transport vehicles” will be subject to an “application fee” to be determined by SANRAL payable upfront and would not be refundable if an application were to be rejected. The exemption will also apply only with respect to operator authorisation permits applicable to the specific routes mentioned in such permits and tolls will have to be paid with respect to any other routes taken on the GFIP toll roads.

A lot is riding on the outcome of the forthcoming court challenge of 24 April 2012 instituted by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA) and dependent on that outcome, JPSA will consider submitting comments on this government gazette, given that some of our members operate private medical rescue services, of which at least one is a non-profit organisation.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

Government gazette No 35148 may be downloaded here.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	MONDAY 16 APRIL 2012
SUBJECT:	SANRAL TARIFFS TANTAMOUNT TO INTIMIDATION & EXTORTION

JOHANNESBURG – Just when we thought that the Department of Transport and SANRAL could not get any more devious, they have surprised us all with their latest effort to force motorists to buy eTags. The tariffs listed in Government Gazette Vol. 562 No. 35263 was appropriately released on Friday the 13th of April 2012 to add to anyone’s superstitious beliefs of it being a day of bad luck, and hve added a whole new dimension to the intimidatory tactics that the Department of Transport is adopting on this issue.

The addition of an entirely new category of motorist; that of an “alternate user” has been added, wherein the tolling rate of those who do not purchase eTags and register with SANRAL will be expected to pay will be a whopping 580% of the rate that those who do are afforded. During the entire course of last week, SANRAL spokespeople repeatedly stated that people are “not compelled but are encouraged to get eTags to take advantage of the discounts on offer” and at no time did they moot that this surprise was coming.

Is it any wonder that the Treasury made the statement on Friday 13 April that “buying an eTag makes economic sense”? It would appear that “plan A” is most certainly not “plan B” as was stated by Treasury director general Lungisa Fuzile. This “plan” can only be described as pure intimidation and must be viewed with the same malice and contempt with which it was contrived.

Now, more than ever is the time for Gauteng motorists to stand firm and refuse to be intimidated by the bullies in government who seem to be under the impression that they can make economic hardships economic impossibilities. The hearing of the OUTA court challenge on eTolling is laid down for 24 April 2012 and it is our sincere hope that the courts can bring a halt to this looming disaster before Gauteng’s insolvency rate sky-rockets due to the greed of SANRAL and the Department of Transport.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2012
SUBJECT:	JMPD 100X VALUE FINES

JOHANNESBURG – The recent spate of outrageously high fine amounts (100 times the original penalty amount) on AARTO 09 results of representations originating from the JMPD when they summarily reject AARTO 08 representations has caused widespread panic and disbelief in the hearts of affected parties.

The explanation that has been offered by the JMPD through the RTIA’s deputy registrar, Mr Sherman Amos on the Midday Report on talk Radio 702 was that that this was caused by a “software upgrade” which has now caused the JMPD’s finances to be represented in cents. This explanation differs from the one given to the Times Newspaper which said that it was caused by the dropping of a decimal point.

The example below is from an AARTO 09 received by someone in January 2012 and as can be clearly seen, there is no decimal or cents value on it.
Old
The latest AARTO 09 documents have two extra zeros on them:
New
The question that must be asked is what possible reason could the JMPD or their contractors have had to change their accounting records and the references in these documents to cents, with a Rand symbol in front? It is far more likely that this “error” was deliberate on the part of the JMPD and/or their contractors in order to scare people into going into their offices to query these things, rather than elect to be tried in court because the JMPD is now starting to haemorrhage money due to people wising up to the unlawfulness of the JMPD’s actions. The RTIA should also not be making excuses for the JMPD if they are not prepared to compel them to obey the law and are going to allow them to appoint unqualified representation officers.

Additionally, a simple comment to the Beeld Newspaper stating that “motorists should not panic if they found themselves confronted with fines of, for example, R50,000 or R300,000” and a radio interview here and there is not good enough. Of course people will panic! It has taken almost two years for people to begin to wise up to the fact that sending AARTO 03 infringement notices by ordinary mail is contrary to the Act and a simple, small press article in one newspaper is simply not going to cut it. The JMPD and RTIA should be forced to at the very least run full page adverts in all newspapers apologising to and reassuring motorists that this was an “error” if that is what it was.

The amount of affected parties – reportedly 50,000 in one batch is also cause for concern, given the fact that this would appear to represent a single month’s worth of representations rejected by the JMPD. JPSA has also been told that people who are trying to hand in AARTO 10 election to be tried in court documents are being refused and told that they must pay “as these fines are not going to go away”. If this is true, then the JMPD is violating people’s right under the Constitution to be tried in a competent court.

The JMPD is very good at making up excuses and pretending that they are blameless and a legitimate entity. They seem to be under the impression that they can make up provisions as and when they wish to do so, and can discard the provisions of the AARTO Act to suit themselves. From 1 June 2010 the JMPD began sending out infringement notices that they previously sent by registered mail in accordance with the Act by ordinary mail, thus negating the entire AARTO process.

The JMPD’s explanation for this has been that the AARTO Act does not specifically prohibit sending infringement notices by ordinary mail, however what they have neglected to note is that the Act says that they must be served by registered mail. A complaint was lodged with the Public Protector by JPSA on 17 June 2011, after all other avenues to get the JMPD to act lawfully failed. This has still not resulted in the resolution of this anomaly.

In December 2011, the JMPD suddenly contracted a large number of individuals to summarily reject representations and advise people to either pay the fines or elect to be tried in court. We have been informed that elections to be tried in court are not being accepted by the JMPD and they are informing people that they have to pay the fines as a court will not listen to them. This is a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the right of every accused person to:

Be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court, and
Be subjected to administrative justice which is “administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair” which is most certainly not the case with respect to how the JMPD is acting as police, judge, jury and executioner.

The JMPD is clearly under the impression that they:

May presume that people they accuse are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and
The JMPD is not obliged to comply with the prescripts of legislation passed into law in South Africa.

JPSA advises all motorists who make representations and have them rejected to immediately exercise their rights under the constitution and elect to be tried in a competent court, which don’t employ administration clerks who know nothing of the law to do their dirty work for them. If the JMPD attempts to refuse you this right, then insist that they accept your election and do not take no for an answer.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 3 APRIL 2012
SUBJECT:	SANRAL DRAFT LEGISLATION “RIDICULOUS” - JPSA

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa has responded with amazement to the fact that SANRAL has claimed in its media statement that the essence of the “South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act Regulations Draft” is not intended to compel motorists to buy eTags and register with SANRAL. With the exception of the first paragraph, their release (below ours) reads like an advertisement for eTags and nothing more!

The core essence and purpose of the draft legislation, whilst not directly stating that motorists will actually be forced to have SANRAL’s modern-day, electronic dompas in their vehicles is quite clearly intended to provide for just that.

The draft legislation deals almost solely with the appointment of enforcement officers under section 54 of the SANRAL Act which wasn’t previously defined in the SANRAL Act and now seeks to legislate that “an employee in full or partial uniform” may “at any time enter any motor vehicle and inspect such vehicle and any electronic device installed therein for the purpose of toll collection.”

If indeed there is no requirement for motorists to have an electronic tag, then why would it be deemed necessary to write 3(1)(g) (amongst others) into this legislation? Why also does the Department of Transport feel that it is necessary or justified to grant the SANRAL Gestapo-like powers which surpass those grated to real law enforcement agencies like the South African Police Services with respect to search and seizure of people’s vehicles and driving licences and other licensing documents?

So rushed was this draft legislation that the “(1)” part of 3(1)(g) was in fact left out in the document published for comment. The legislation drafters were also quite clearly ignorant of the existence of two other little pieces of legislation – the Criminal Procedure Act and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; which enshrines the right of every person not to have their person, home or property (which includes a motor vehicle) searched without warrant.

Had the Department of Transport and SANRAL have not adopted the arrogant attitude and grossly incompetent lack of attention to detail they have with respect to this entire eTolling debacle, they would not have had to rush to draft poorly thought out legislation or waste people’s time commenting, within very tight timelines, to draft legislation which violates the Constitution and therefore cannot constitutionally be passed into law by Parliament – unless of course, the Constitution is discarded and changed in its entirety as has been mooted recently, prior to enacting this atrociously ridiculous draft legislation.

Howard Dembovsky may be contacted for further comment.

From: Felix Sebata [mailto:felix@magna-carta.co.za]
Sent: 03 April 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: Media release: SANRAL response: Road users not obligated to buy an e-tag

Dear News Editor,

NEWS RELEASE
3 April 2012

Road users not obligated to buy an e-tag

The South African Roads National Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) would like to clarify to road users that it is not compulsory for road users to buy an e-tag for Gauteng e-tolling. Registering with an e-tag is optional. Road users are therefore not forced to buy an e-tag but are encouraged to obtain one to enjoy the cost saving benefits available to e-tag users.

The registration procedure communicated by SANRAL and stipulated on the SANRAL website states that the road users can register for Gauteng e-tolling with a South African ID or passport number, physical and postal addresses, contact details (cell phone, landline, fax number and/or email address), account payment details (either cash or bank account or credit card details for those who choose the debit order option), vehicle licence plate number, and make and model of vehicle. Users are also not required to provide their banking details. There are many payment options including cash or electronic funds transfer (EFT) from which the user may choose to set up the e-toll account.

Having an e-tag linked to the e-toll account is an option that is chosen by the road user. The e-tag qualifies road users to the e-tag related discounts. These include the 48 percent e-tag discount and frequent user discounts that are available only to e-tag users. The e-toll tariffs have also been capped at R550 per month for motorcycles and light motor vehicles that are registered with an e-tag.

The e-tag also offers road users protection against licence plate cloning as the e-tag cannot be cloned. The e-tag is linked to one specific vehicle and can only be used with that vehicle.
ENDS

Issued by the South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited
Email: pressoffice@nra.co.za

JPSA will be submitting comments on this ridiculous legislation on behalf of its members prior to the closing date of 16 April, 2012.

Want to read the draft legislation for yourself so you too can comment on it? You can download it here and you can send your comments to:

Email MphahleT@dot.gov.za
Tel : 012 309 3481
Fax : 012 309 3134
The Department of Transport
Private Bag X 193
PRETORIA
0002

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH 2012
SUBJECT:	STOP THE THREATS!

JOHANNESBURG – When the threats of prosecution, imprisonment and other dire consequences for resisting the Gauteng eTolls and not registering with SANRAL first started a few weeks ago, JPSA National Chairman, Howard Dembovsky said “I find these idle threats amusing.” But now that these threats have endured for more than three weeks, this “amusement” has transformed to utter disgust.

The latest threat which emanates from Nazir Alli of SANRAL and National Department of Transport spokesperson Tiyani Rikhotso now threatens motorists with being unable to get license discs for their vehicles.

According to a report in the Star newspaper, “Department of Transport spokesman Tiyani Rikhotso on Tuesday night said it would be considered in the same light as not paying your traffic fines, which was a cause for disallowing the renewal of a vehicle licence.”

The Department of Transport should be acutely aware of the fact that regulation 59 of the National Road traffic regulations only allows for withholding licence discs if the person concerned has outstanding licensing fees or licensing penalties or, in the case of traffic fines, if they have failed to appear in court on a summons for a traffic offence and a warrant of arrest has been issued against them. The only exception to this rule is that under AARTO, a licence disk may be withheld if an Enforcement Order has been issued against the party concerned.

Just because licensing authorities have been abusing the National Road Traffic Regulations with impunity for ages now does not make it legal for them to do so and effectively force motorists to further break the law by not displaying a licence disc, despite paying the licensing fees and/or violate their constitutional right to freedom of movement.

One would have thought that the Department of Transport, SANRAL, RTMC, etc. would have taken the trouble to ensure that there was some form of workable legislation in place to deal with eTolling defaulters by now, given the fact that they have been on about eTolling Gauteng’s roads since 2003. Surely 9 years should have been more than sufficient time to draft and get parliament to ratify legislation, instead of now rushing to push something through and/or try to shoehorn non-compliance into existing legislation that does not cater for it?

There is no legislation that compels anyone to buy an eTag or register with SANRAL to have monies deducted at will out of their banking accounts. Suggestions that you will be forced to do so or face not having your licence disc issued is nothing short of extortion and we take a very dim view of those concerned resorting to this tactic in order to intimidate Gauteng residents into complying with the decrees of all concerned.

There is much to be done on the legislation front in order for the threats to become a reality and government had best just hope that their stance survives the legal challenges of some and organised public outrage of others when they deal with these matters in the authoritarian and insensitive manner that they have adopted thus far.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	SUNDAY 19 FEBRUARY 2012
SUBJECT:	SANRAL COMMISSIONS “INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION”

JOHANNESBURG – Following an email sent by Justice Project SA National Chairman to SANRAL board members with respect to the roadblocks which took place on Sunday 22 January 2012, audit firm Deloitte and Touche has been commissioned to conduct an “independent forensic investigation” into the claims.

This after SANRAL announced on its website and in releases to the media on 30 January 2012 “The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) would like to unequivocally state that no staff from either SANRAL or its toll operator, ETC, have conducted any roadblocks as described in the emails and social network postings that allege this.” (Original release available here)

The investigation was commissioned on Tuesday 7 February 2012 and Howard Dembovsky met with investigator, Advocate Tommy Prins (SC) on Friday 10 February to give him a background as to what happened on 22 January. “Due to the fears of reprisal expressed by people who were stopped in these roadblocks, we are unable to provide SANRAL or Deloitte with the names and contact details of these people, but I can assure you that they are very real people, with very real fears” said Dembovsky.

Since then, it has been noted that no announcement has been made by SANRAL or Deloitte with respect to this investigation. In fact, the latest release in the chronological list of press releases on the SANRAL website is that of 30 January 2012 stating “SANRAL: Zero truth in latest e-toll roadblock hoax.”

In the interests of providing the investigator at Deloitte with as much information as is possible to enable him to conduct this investigation, JPSA would like to call on anyone who was stopped at the roadblock on the Linksfield Road onramp to the N3 South – or at any other place and told that they must register for eTolling or face a hefty fine to either contact the investigator or JPSA.

The “buzz” around this roadblock that took place on Twitter on Sunday 22 January 2012 originated from a number of tweets received by @PigSpotter, who subsequently contacted JPSA and went out to take photographs of the roadblock. These photographs were taken just as the roadblock was packing up.

There is currently no legislation in force that compels anyone to purchase an eTag or register with SANRAL for eTolling under the Open Road Tolling (ORT) and the Gauteng eTolling project has, according to multiple media reports, been suspended until further notice.

The following individuals may be contacted if members of the public have any information:

Deloitte & Touche
AdvocateTommy Prins (SC)
Tel: 011 806 5484 or 012 482 0262
Direct Fax: 011 388 5005
Cell: 082 824 2815
Email: tprins@deloitte.co.za

Justice Project South Africa
Howard Dembovsky – 082 418 6210 – email is available here.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2012
SUBJECT:	AARTO FINES BY ORDINARY MAIL NOT LEGAL – JPSA AND AA SOUTH AFRICA

JOHANNESBURG – It was with surprise that JPSA and the Automobile Association of South Africa read an article which appeared in the Beeld Newspaper of Tuesday 1 February 2012 entitled “Dok op of gaan na hof” (cough up or go to court), referring to the service of AARTO infringement notices sent by ordinary mail by the JMPD. We have subsequently obtained the additional letters referred to in this article and they have reference.

As has been widely reported, JPSA laid an official complaint with the office of the Public Protector in Pretoria (complaint reference: 40832/11) in June 2011, after numerous attempts to address the matter through the JMPD, RTMC and RTIA failed, despite the then acting Registrar of the RTIA repeatedly stating in the media, in radio interviews and in writing that the service of AARTO 03 infringement notices by ordinary mail was NOT lawful.

On 11 January 2011, the then Acting and now fully appointed Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA), Mr Japh Chuwe wrote to the JMPD “requesting” that they cease sending out infringement notices by ordinary mail in contravention of Section 30(1) of the AARTO Amendment Act. This “request” was summarily ignored – as happens when requests are made.

In the same letter, Mr Japh Chuwe also instructed as follows: “You are furthermore advised that in cases where representation applications are received in respect of infringement notices served by ordinary mail, those infringement notices must be withdrawn and such representations made successful. In relation to those infringement notices referring to juristic persons, the owners of those vehicles in question cannot be requested to identify or nominate drivers as the initial notices were not properly served as prescribed by the Act.”

In his letter to van der Westhuizen Attorneys dated 31 January 2012, Mr Chuwe stated “My letter as referenced by you to the Chief of the JMPD dated 11 January 2011 was and is not intended for public consumption…” and “…the individual infringers de facto received the relevant infringement notices albeit through ordinary mail (caused to be served) and through representations made by them as provided for in the Act, acknowledged receipt thereof and are therefore liable.”

These statements openly display the fact that Mr Chuwe has acknowledged that he was the author of the letter to the JMPD – which he further intended to keep secret, as well as proving beyond any reasonable doubt that he has actively engaged in an act of entrapment by repeatedly and publicly stating that alleged infringers may “make representation on an AARTO 08 form if they receive infringement notices by ordinary mail.” This “advice” was also offered by him in writing in September 2010 in his response letter to JPSA’s complaint!

It therefore appears that Mr Chuwe has now made a complete turn-around on what he has previously said and put in writing, including but not limited to his letter to JPSA and subsequent letter to the JMPD; seemingly in active support and defence of the unlawfulness of the JMPD’s patently obvious unlawful actions. Both the AA and JPSA view his latest action as patently dishonest and contrary to his mandate to ensure that AARTO is applied in a fair and equitable manner and JPSA hereby calls for his immediate sanction for engaging in such blatantly dishonourable practices.

JPSA has furthermore been informed that the meeting that was scheduled to take place between the Public Protector and the JMPD, RTMC and RTIA on Friday 27 January 2012 was summarily cancelled by the City of Johannesburg on Thursday 26 January and that a commitment to respond in writing by Monday 6 February was made.

Whilst JPSA understands that the office of the Public Protector has to remain reasonable in accepting “alternative offers” by the respondents in this matter with respect to meeting dates etc., and we are not in the least bit surprised that the JMPD has shown gross disrespect for the seriousness of this matter by cancelling a meeting a mere 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place – when this meeting was scheduled nearly two weeks prior to that date; we believe that this action simply goes to further display the total lack of respect that the JMPD has for anyone or anything other than themselves.

Over the past week and a half, JPSA has been inundated with queries from members of the public who, after previously receiving successful results on representations citing Section 30(1) of the AARTO Amendment Act have now received AARTO 09 results rejecting their representation and advising them to elect to be tried in court. As stated in our release of Friday 20 January 2012, entitled “JMPD – ISSUER, JUDGE, JURY & EXECUTIONER”, JPSA was aware that this would probably happen due to an instruction given by Director Gerrie Gerneke in late December 2011.

JPSA and the AA wish to advise motorists who receive such responses to exercise their legal right to subsequently elect to be tried in court and not to succumb to this blatant attempt to defeat the ends of administrative justice, which is clearly designed to get them to pay unlawfully served AARTO 03 infringement notices. We sincerely doubt that any Public Prosecutor would risk rebuke by a Magistrate by placing any such matter on the court role when they are well aware that a Magistrate will have to act within the framework of the law and find in the favour of the alleged infringer, or risk judicial review.

It is also doubtful whether it would ever come to the alleged infringer even being issued and served with a summons to appear in court prior to the Public Protector making a final finding on this matter, given the fact that our complaint is now more than seven months old and we remain hopeful that the Public Protector will wrap this matter up without further undue delay.

JPSA, the AA and multiple other parties have continuously and repeatedly warned of the dangers of allowing an issuing authority to be issuer, judge, jury and executioner by appointing and employing adjudication officers under AARTO, especially in light of the fact that adjudication is supposed to be a fair and unbiased function of Administrative Justice, just as it would be in a conventional court. It is now obvious that this travesty of justice has been extended to the JMPD additionally replacing parliament in making up its own provisions of legislation – now in full support and cooperation by the RTIA conspiring with them to justify their action.

The following individuals may be contacted for further information and further comment:
Gary Ronald – AA South Africa – 083 386 6954 – email gronald@aasa.co.za
Howard Dembovsky – 082 418 6210

Collateral available by downloading this zip file (860KB).

Letter from Japh Chuwe to JPSA dated 1 September 2010. NOTE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION
Letter from Japh Chuwe to the JMPD dated 11 January 2011. NOTE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS
Letters from HJ van der Westhuizen Attorneys to RTIA dated 23 and 30 January 2012.
Letter from Japh Chuwe to HJ van der Westhuizen Attorneys dated 31 January 2012, signed by the deputy registrar of the RTIA, Mr Sherman Amos. NOTE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	FRIDAY 20 JANUARY 2012
SUBJECT:	JMPD – ISSUER, JUDGE, JURY & EXECUTIONER

JOHANNESBURG – Following the complaint lodged with the Public Protector on 16 June 2011 by JPSA and the ongoing saga surrounding the JMPD’s unlawful issue of AARTO 03 infringement notices since 1 June 2010, it has recently come to light that a new tactic is being employed by the JMPD to get people to pay unlawful fines.

It has emerged that not only has the JMPD defied the “request” to cease acting unlawfully with respect to service, but that the AARTO Representations office at the JMPD’s offices in Village Road, Selby is turning people away and telling them that they must either pay these fines or elect to be tried in court. This is a gross violation of not only the AARTO Act, but also of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and the Constitution as the JMPD is now denying people access to administrative justice.

We were informed that this practice was ordered by Director Gerneke in late December 2011, but were unable to verify its implementation until Wednesday 18 January, when JPSA’s National Secretary was subjected to this treatment. She stood her ground and insisted that they take the representation forms she was submitting – neither of which related to her – and JPSA would like to encourage all members of the public to do the same as the JMPD has no right or legal standing to refuse to accept AARTO 08 representation forms. If they subsequently defy the instruction of the Registrar of the RTIA and reject such representations, the JMPD will furthermore be guilty of disobeying a lawful instruction.

A further complaint has been lodged with the Public Protector by JPSA in this regard and we are informed that the Public Protector is scheduled to meet with the JMPD and the RTIA/RTMC on Friday 27 January 2012.

JPSA has continuously and repeatedly warned of the dangers of having an issuing authority being allowed to be issuer, judge, jury and executioner by appointing and employing adjudication officers under AARTO, especially in light of the fact that adjudication is supposed to be a fair and unbiased function of Administrative Justice just as it would be in a conventional court.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY 3 JANUARY 2012
SUBJECT:	TRANSPORT MINISTER IGNORES PETITION

JOHANNESBURG – JPSA would like to confirm that as at Tuesday 3 January 2012, no response has been received to our Memorandum and Petition with respect to bringing a halt to “blue light brigades” which was hand delivered to the National Department of Transport on 1 December 2011 and gave the Minister until 31 December 2011 to act.

As a result of his inaction a letter has been drafted and delivered to the World Health Organisation at the United Nations in line with what was stated in our Memorandum. Other avenues will also be pursued in due course. Prior to delivery of the letter taking place, we once again checked our post box to make certain that no response had been received. No other form of contact has been made either.

Whilst we are not surprised that the Minister has chosen to ignore the petition which was signed by 46,646 people, we are nonetheless disappointed that our Minister of Transport has seen fit to do so, given the fact that this petition came about as a result of the crashing into and serious injury of Thomas Ferreira, on 5 November 2011 and whom is still in a semi-comatose state in a rehabilitation centre.

The crash was allegedly caused by the driver of the Housing MEC for Gauteng’s driver proceeding through a red traffic light at speed, after switching on little more than a blue flashing light in his unmarked BMW X5 SUV. To date, we have not heard of any criminal charges having been brought against Mr Semietsi Joseph Modomai, although we have heard that statements have been taken from witnesses to the crash.

By not so much as responding in any way whatsoever, the Minister has overtly shown his contempt for our organisation, 46,646 people and the safety of road users of this country. It is also notable that neither he, nor any other person from the National Department of Transport has so much as taken a minute to offer any sympathies to the Ferreira family or so much as mentioned this incident for that matter.

To date, no financial assistance has been forthcoming to the Ferreira family with respect to Thomas’ medical bills (shortfalls) as was promised by Gauteng Premier Nomvula Mokonyane. The spokesperson for MEC Humphrey Mmemezi’s office has told the media that their office will be meeting with the Ferreira Family “in the New Year”.

As a result, a trust fund was formed in December 2011 in order to assist the family with the medical shortfalls. The details of that trust account are as follows:

Thomas Ferreira Relief Trust
Standard Bank Melville
Account Number: 037359363
Branch Code: 006105
Savings Account

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS AND TRANSPORT EDITORS
DATE:	FRIDAY 23 DECEMBER 2011
SUBJECT:	APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT CEO FOR THE RTMC

JOHANNESBURG – JPSA welcomes the announcement by the National Department of Transport that a permanent CEO is to be appointed to the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) soon. Collins Letsoalo has occupied the post of Acting CEO for almost two years now and under his tenure, the rollout of the AARTO Act has all but completely stalled and a number of questionable practices have been the order of the day.

The promised AARTO summit has not come to fruition, despite having been announced in June 2011 and it is highly unlikely that AARTO will be rolled out prior to the end of the current financial year as repeatedly announced by the Department of Transport and the RTMC.

It is our hope that the process of appointing a permanent CEO for the Corporation will follow all laid down procedures and sound business principals for appointing a person to a post as important as CEO and that this time; a suitably qualified and vetted leader will be appointed since the RTMC has had more than its fair share of unqualified dictators.

It is with interest that JPSA notes that the National Department of Transport has announced that the termination of the employment of former CEO, Ranthoko Rakgoale has now been concluded and that the details of the “settlement” reached between him and the DoT will remain a secret. Whilst we understand that his removal from the Corporation had the potential to embarrass many of the so-called stake holders committee of the RTMC, it is notable that transparency is not a priority with respect to the operations of the RTMC and DoT.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, TRANSPORT & CRIME EDITORS
DATE:	FRIDAY 23 DECEMBER 2011
SUBJECT:	UTTERINGS MADE BY DIRECTOR GERNEKE IN DEFENCE OF HIS ACTIONS

JOHANNESBURG – It has come to our attention that Director Gerrie Gerneke of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department has made a number of unsubstantiated statements which are materially and factually incorrect. In short, he is being economical with the truth in his statements to the media. He has furthermore levelled wild allegations at this organisation and at me in my personal capacity stating that we/I have “ulterior motives”.

JPSA is an organization that represents the rights of individuals and groups. Another of our mandates is to educate the public and make them aware of their fundamental rights and responsibilities as enshrined in our constitution and other pieces of legislation and regulations. Because we do what we are mandated to do, Director Gerneke concludes our actions have ulterior motives.

Whatever conclusions Mr Gerneke wishes to reach, we will continue to fearlessly represent our constituency, educate them and make them aware of the illegal activities of any law enforcement agency including the JMPD, should they choose to engage in such activities and we will not succumb to blatant attempts to discredit or intimidate us.

We point out that the AARTO Act and Regulations are very clear with respect to how infringement notices under the Act must and shall be served. The legislature was very clear in what its intention was with regard to how notices must be served on alleged infringers and did not suggest that anyone should be allowed to subject the legislation to their own interpretation.

Section 30(1) of the AARTO Amendment Act (Act 22 of 1999) clearly states the following:

“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.”

Furthermore, Regulation 3(1) (b) of the AARTO Regulations explicitly states that an AARTO 03 infringement notice must be served by registered mail in that it states:

“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.”

There is nothing in the Act or Regulations that permits Director Gerneke or the JMPD to interpret the said Act or Regulations in any manner that suits them. Equally there is no provision in the Act or regulations that exempts Director Gerneke from implementing any of the provisions in terms of the legislature’s intention.

Director Gerneke’s assumptions that he can violate the Act and regulations with impunity are too horrible to contemplate; because if he is allowed to do so then he is both the legislature and the implementing agency. He is also reminded that the JMPD is not a “local authority” in terms of the AARTO Act; it is an issuing authority.

The purpose of our press briefing held on Tuesday 20 December 2011 and the media release that accompanied it regarding this issue was to highlight the fact that the JMPD has continuously been sending out infringement notices by ordinary as opposed to registered mail as is required by the Act. This is an issue that we revealed over 18 months ago and we will continue to remind the law abiding public of their rights whether the JMPD likes it or not.

Its purpose was furthermore to reveal the fact that the then Acting and now fully appointed Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency, Mr Japh Chuwe not only agrees with everything that I and JPSA have been saying about the unlawful service of AARTO infringement notices by the JMPD, but issued an instruction (request) that the JMPD complies with the prescripts of the Act as far back as January 2011 and that the JMPD has ignored this.

Director Gerneke and Chief Ngcobo have disregarded a lawful instruction issued by the very top level of the AARTO structure as well as disregarding legislation and in doing so have acted in a highly unprofessional, insubordinate and illegal manner. The fact that they have continued to do so for 11 months after being requested to cease doing so is an indisputable indictment of their unparalleled arrogance, extortionist tendencies and readiness to violate the law.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the matter is in the hands of the Public Protector, who will be the authority that makes a determination on the matter; Acting CEO of the RTMC, Mr Collins Letsoalo has chosen to come out in defence of the JMPD and offer his own legal determination to the effect that the actions of the JMPD are “irregular” and not “unlawful” ahead of that office’s findings.

I and JPSA have repeatedly and consistently maintained the standpoint that the JMPD is acting unlawfully and we have done so in the interests of the public and the proper application of the law, so Director Gerneke is correct when he says we have been “singing the same tune” for a long time now.

Gerneke states that “notice was therefore given through ordinary mail in the interest of law enforcement”, but fails to acknowledge that law enforcement must be practiced in accordance with the law. Had he and the JMPD have simply stuck to the provisions of the Act they would have acted lawfully.

Mr Gerneke then goes on to say “It is with some regret … that some organisations and individuals have now seized upon this opportunity to confuse and distort the issues for ulterior motives” and I invite him to define his statements clearly.

Director Gerneke is also accusing the South African Post Office of inefficiencies with respect to their Secure Mail service. He must explain the basis of this accusation as well. One has to ask if it is his contention that the SAPO cannot be relied upon to provide a secure mail delivery service, then why is it that it is used by other major institutions, like banks, law firms, etc.?

I invite members of the media to go to the source and contact the following individuals for clarification on the lawfulness of the JMPD’s actions:

Mr Japh Chuwe – Registrar of the RTIA – japhc@rtia.co.za – Cell phone (071) 680 3447
Mr Sherman Amos – Deputy Registrar of the RTIA – shermana@rtia.co.za – Cell phone (082) 647 5819

MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	ALL NEWS, TRANSPORT & CRIME EDITORS
DATE:	TUESDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2011
SUBJECT:	JMPD CONTINUES TO THUMB ITS NOSE AT THE AARTO ACT

JOHANNESBURG – More than eighteen months after the JMPD started sending out AARTO 03 infringement notices by standard permit mail in direct violation of Section 30(1) of the AARTO Amendment Act, 1999 (on 1 June 2010), it has emerged that the Acting Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA), Mr Japh Chuwe wrote to JMPD Chief, Chris Ngcobo copying Director Gerrie Gerneke, requesting them to cease this practice on 11 January 2011. The letter was also copied to the Acting CEO of the RTMC, Mr Collins Letsoalo.

This release has a large amount of information attached to it and has been published here.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News, Crime & Transport Editors
DATE:	Wednesday, 09 November 2011
SUBJECT:	CALL TO BAN “BLUE LIGHT BRIGADES”

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) wishes to extend its heartfelt and sincere best wishes to the family of 18 year old Thomas Ferreira who was senselessly and unlawfully critically injured by the driver of the unmarked BMW X5, allegedly transporting Gauteng Housing MEC, Humphrey Mmemezi this past weekend.

It has been noted that whilst the MEC for Gauteng Province, Nomvula Mokonyane has indeed commented on this matter, the Minister of Transport, Sibusiso Ndebele has not done so despite the fact that he was in Johannesburg for the launch of the Imperial “I Pledge” initiative yesterday where he spoke of the unacceptably high road death statistics in South Africa.

The use of blue flashing lights (and sirens) is governed by the National Road Traffic Act and definitively does not so much as suggest that any person using them is granted permission to disregard the safety of other motorists. It furthermore says that these may only be used by law enforcement authorities in reacting to emergencies.

Whilst there is no definition of the word “emergency” in the National Road Traffic Act, the dictionary and reasonable definition of this word applies and whilst meetings may certainly sometimes be defined as “urgent”, it is extremely unusual for one to constitute an emergency as is being suggested by some people.

The proliferation of the use of blue lights (and sometimes sirens), coupled with the extremely aggressive and reckless driving habits of so called “blue light brigades” have not only raised public anger but has on several occasions led to serious crashes and injuries of “ordinary motorists” and cannot be tolerated any longer.

To this end, JPSA has for the first time in its history, authored a petition to bring about the banning of the use of blue lights in all vehicles other than marked police and traffic authority emergency and enforcement vehicles. This petition is accessible by visiting this site.

It is our intention to present this petition to the Minister of Transport by no later than 1 December 2011, for action by no later than 31 December 2011 and therefore; this petition will only be available until 30 November 2011. Those who wish to lend their support to this petition are therefore urged to act promptly.

With respect to the MEC’s driver, we sincerely hope that equal standards will be applied to his act as is applied to “ordinary citizens” and that he will be charged with and prosecuted for attempted murder as has become fashionable. He cannot reasonably claim that he could not have foreseen that proceeding through a red traffic light could not have led to the injury or death of another motorist.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News, Crime & Transport Editors
DATE:	Tuesday, 01 November 2011
SUBJECT:	“COPS BUNGLED BOOZE TEST IN JOGGER TRAGEDY” - JPSA REACTION

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) was horrified to learn this morning that the JMPD failed to have blood samples taken from Sibusiso Langa, the accused in the Midrand tragedy that took the lives of 5 “joggers” within the prescribed two hours. Ref here. Jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with it, given that SAPS have jurisdiction over the entire nation of South Africa and cases can be transferred between stations if necessary. That is simply an excuse that is not going to wash!

Immediately on learning about the crash on Saturday 22 October 2011, JPSA contacted Superintendent Edna Mamonyane of the JMPD and offered to pay for the blood samples taken from the accused in this case to be analysed by a private laboratory, so as to expedite the matter and bring it to a swift conclusion. We were never taken up on that offer and now we know why.

We can only hope that the rest of the investigation was done properly and that a competent and suitably qualified forensic crash investigator was called in to investigate the crash. At the time of the crash, JPSA also secured the services of IBF Investigations crash investigator, Stan Bezuidenhout, who has over 30 years’ experience in forensic crash investigation – also for free, but did not manage to offer this to the JMPD due to their ignoring our requests for cooperation on the blood tests issue.

At the time of making these offers and soliciting these services, JPSA urged that the accused be charged with the appropriate crimes of driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless or negligent driving and five counts of culpable homicide, but that plea was overridden by the Minister of Transport calling for charges of murder to be brought and the NPA obliged.

A motorist convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol can be imprisoned for up to 6 years (on a first offence), 6 years for reckless or negligent driving and 3 years per count of culpable homicide. That comes to 27 years and would send the right message if it were to be imposed.

Driving under the influence of intoxicating substances is the Number 1 killer on our roads and JPSA has recently put a comprehensive proposal to a number of stakeholders to tackle this scourge effectively. People need to come to the realisation that driving under the influence of intoxicating substances has dire consequences and cannot and will not be tolerated any longer. However, this problem must be effectively tackled before people are killed and/or injured as prevention is better than cure – always!

JPSA again extends its sincere condolences to the families of those affected by this horrific incident.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News, Crime & Transport Editors
DATE:	Sunday, 23 October 2011
SUBJECT:	TRANSPORT MINISTER INSTRUCTS SANRAL TO HALT WORK ON TOLL ROADS - JPSA RESPONDS

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) has reacted with utter dismay and horror at the announcement that Transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele has instructed SANRAL to halt all work on Toll Roads. To use your words, Mister Minister, we are “shocked” at your lack of foresight!

In a statement released by the Department of Transport on Sunday 23 October, it was stated that “The Minister of Transport Mr Sibusiso Ndebele has instructed the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) to halt all road projects processes related to the tolling of national roads.” The release goes on to say “He says while the first phase of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Plan has delivered good road infrastructure, it was an expensive exercise that has drawn sharp views from the public.”

Nonsense! The first phase of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Plan has NOT been completed yet, unless the first phase only included the N1 and R21 freeways! The N12/N3 freeways in Johannesburg are in such a shocking, demolished state of dilapidation that they constantly cause crashes and daily gridlock traffic and calling a halt to their reinstatement as usable freeways is little short of insanity on the part of the Minister.

There is a VAST difference between calling a halt to planned tolling and calling a halt to the construction of roads which have been demolished by SANRAL and its contractors and the state of the Johannesburg roads currently under construction can only be described as treacherous.

One of the most prevalent factors in road fatalities is poor engineering and if the Minister thinks that he can punish motorists for being angry with his and SANRAL’s intent to profit from tolling freeways, then he is not only childish, but is displaying the traits of a dictator.

The answer to implementing and maintaining roads infrastructure in South Africa lies in coming up with workable solutions that benefit the public and from spending monies collected from existing taxation and possibly even reasonable tolling on roads infrastructure – not looking to make SANRAL and foreign companies stinking rich. Don’t try and make the public think that you are sympathetic to their plight of lack of affordability Mr Minister when it was you who previously said “if you don’t like it, catch a taxi.” Do you really think that we all have such short memories as to forget you said that?

There is nothing wrong with saying “Minister Ndebele says all these processes, including a consultative processes initiated by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, should be allowed to reach their logical conclusions to ensure that all parties concerned and their respective views are brought on board” but blackmailing motorists by leaving current road construction projects unfinished is completely unacceptable.

This announcement and instruction should be immediately retracted and/or clarified, the currently dilapidated roads finished; or at least reinstated to a condition that can be defined as freeways and some semblance of order restored to our roads. The matter of tolls can be properly discussed and resolved when these roads are sorted out. Failing this, Minister Ndebele and SANRAL are lining themselves up for litigation and possibly even criminal charges for destroying what roads were in place.

On a final note, JPSA again notes that important announcements are being made by the Department of Transport on a Sunday when few journalists are on duty. We have to question why this tactic is being adopted more and more often by the Department of Transport.

Full transcript of DoT media release follows:

Issued by: Ministry of Transport

Attention: News Editors

For immediate release:

23 October 2011

TRANSPORT MINISTER ORDERS A HALT TO TOLL ROAD PROJECTS

The Minister of Transport Mr Sibusiso Ndebele has instructed the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) to halt all road projects processes related to the tolling of national roads.

The Minister is of the view that consultative processes should be allowed to take place to offer concerned parties an opportunity to share their views on the toll road programme.

While he believes that the country requires good road infrastructure to meet its economic growth targets, the Minister says this shouldn't put a huge financial burden on the shoulders of consumers.

He says while the first phase of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Plan has delivered good road infrastructure, it was an expensive exercise that has drawn sharp views from the public.

"All spheres of government should be part of a consultative process with all affected parties, consumers in the main. Good infrastructure is a necessity for a better future for our country, but this requirement must not leave our people even poorer," says Minister Ndebele.

Cabinet recently appointed a Task Team that includes Minister Ndebele and the Minister of Finance to look into the issue of toll roads.

Minister Ndebele says all these processes, including a consultative processes initiated by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, should be allowed to reach their logical conclusions to ensure that all parties concerned and their respective views are brought on board.

Issued by

Ministry of Transport. Forum Building. Cnr Schoeman and Struben St. Pretoria.

For more information please contact Tiyani Rikhotso on 083 800 9936

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News, Crime & Transport Editors
DATE:	Saturday, 22 October 2011
SUBJECT:	5 JOGGERS KILLED - JPSA REACTION

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) wishes to extend its heartfelt and sincere condolences to the families of the 5 joggers killed by an allegedly drunk driver in Midrand this morning.

We have been in contact with Superintendent Edna Mamonyane of the JMPD as well as the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Menzi Simelane from the NPA and we have offered to pay for the blood samples taken from the accused in this case to be analysed by a private laboratory so as to expedite the matter and bring it to a swift conclusion.

We have also urged that the accused be charged with the appropriate charges of driving under the influence of alcohol as well as the alternate charges applicable to drink driving and with 5 counts of culpable homicide so as to increase the chances of successful prosecution resulting in as swift a manner as possible. If the proper procedures have been followed in this instance, there is no reason why this cannot be achieved.

Whilst it has become fashionable to try to create sensation by charging people accused of similar crimes with murder, we feel that the State is being forced into an unenviable predicament of trying to prove intent of murder and this is neither necessary nor productive as it wastes valuable time and has not as yet yielded the desired results in similar cases. In fact, all it has done is to have delayed justice and wasted valuable court time.

A motorist convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol can be imprisoned for up to 6 years (on a first offence) on the drink driving charge and 3 years per count of culpable homicide and JPSA will be pushing for the maximum sentence to be imposed in this instance.

-ENDS-

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News & Transport Editors
DATE:	Friday 23 September, 2011 – 11:30
SUBJECT:	JPSA SLAMS SANTACO PRESIDENT’S HYPOCRISY & IGNORANCE

JOHANNESBURG – It is with interest and not a small amount of bewilderment that JPSA has learned that SANTACO president Jabulani Mthembu has stated in public that his organisation supports the call by transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele to lower the speed limits on national freeways from 120km/h to 100km/h. (http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/09/23/taxi-drivers-endorse-low-speed-limit).

What is most surprising about his apparent attempt to suck up to the Minister is that he seems to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that a speed limit of 100km/h on national freeways already applies to ALL of his members’ vehicles as well as busses!

Every single day we hear about another fatal minibus taxi crash and every single day other road users; including pedestrians and minibus taxi passengers themselves have to contend with taxi drivers breaking almost every traffic law that exists. Only today, another 16 school children have been injured (some seriously) in yet another minibus taxi crash in Kwa-Zulu Natal.

What is almost more surprising to learn that KwaZulu-Natal Transport MEC Willies Mchunu seems to also be equally oblivious as his colleagues are that the speed limit with respect to that class of vehicle (minibus taxis) already exists when he similarly supports these calls for a reduction in speed limits and says “every week we have been losing more than 10 lives in one accident.”

Whilst it has become customary for people to not practice what they preach, Mr Mthembu’s efforts would be way better spent getting his members to comply with the basics of existing laws rather than coming forward with hypocritical statements about other motorists who are subjected to the grossly delinquent and homicidal behaviour of his members and others in the minibus taxi industry.

Surely all of these people are not ignorant enough to think that reducing the speed limit applicable light motor vehicles on national freeways is going to make any difference to the compliance of minibus taxis with speed limits and traffic laws. Then again, apparently they are.

Don’t fool yourself, ignorance and reckless driving kills!

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News & Transport Editors
DATE:	Tuesday 20 September, 2011 – 22:30
SUBJECT:	PROPOSED REDUCTION OF SPEED LIMIT ON FREEWAYS

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) was mildly surprised to hear that transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele is now seeking to reduce the general speed limit applicable on freeways from 120km/h to 100km/h, once again quoting what has been the case in Australia as an example of how road deaths can be reduced. He cites the fact that “studies conducted in other countries such as Australia where the speed limit is 110km/h indicate that a reduction in speed limit can save lives” but he seems to continually either miss or circumvent the obvious.

Whilst speed may indeed contribute to the severity of a collision, it is very rarely the root cause of collisions and one has to take into account that two vehicles travelling at just 60km/k each, which then crash into one and other head-on will have a devastating outcome. Head on collisions – of which there have been many in the last two months are almost always resultant from one or more parties committing one or more moving violations prior to the collision occurring.

Similarly, it has been repeatedly stated by the Department of Transport, the RTMC and countless others that collisions are almost always preceded by the commission of a moving violations, yet for some obscure reason, law enforcement authorities insist on focussing almost exclusively on camera based speed prosecution instead of concentrating on truly dangerous moving violations like overtaking on no-overtaking lines, blind rises etc., not stopping at stop streets and red lights, not observing safe following distances, etc. It has also been revealed that somewhere in the order of 45% of all people who die on our roads annually are under the influence of alcohol. Yet, the focus on highly ineffective camera enforcement remains the primary focus of traffic law enforcement agencies and in some agencies, this figure is as high as 99%. In Johannesburg alone, this equates to around 430,000 fines a month – each and every month and this figure is not reducing.

The Minister was quoted as saying “There are increasing calls and signs that something drastic needs to be done to arrest the current situation," and we could not agree with him more. However JPSA holds that the “something” that needs to be done is for the 17,000 odd traffic officers in this country, their bosses and the Minister himself to start taking the role of traffic law enforcement seriously. It is no good running around bringing new legislation – and adjustments to current legislation before cabinet when current laws are not being enforced properly.

So what if the Minister gets his ill thought-out scheme of reducing the current general speed limit of 120km/h on national freeways reduced to 100km/h if all this will mean is that even more cameras will explode onto the scene to earn traffic authorities more revenue? If speed enforcement does not revert to stopping speedsters at the time of their infringement, then reducing the speed limit will have absolutely no effect on the incidences of speeding. The Minister also needs to start to grasp the concept that “you cannot reduce road deaths by decree, Mr Minister!”

Continually comparing Australia and other countries which have highly professional and effective law enforcement agencies in place to South Africa is not only nonsensical, but acutely highlights the total lack of understanding the Minister has of his own country and what is giving rise to the problems we have. The only similarities between South Africa and Australia is that we are both in the Southern hemisphere and drive on the left hand side of the road.

Urgent attention must be given to the traffic authorities in South Africa taking their mandate seriously and starting to do things properly. If for example, traffic authorities were to purely focus on enforcing wearing seat belts, as is required by long pre-existing legislation, then there would be an immediate effect on the number of lives that are saved in collisions. But a holistic and very serious adjustment in the way in which traffic law is enforced in this country has to be made if anyone wants to see any results whatsoever.

The Minister also needs to bear in mind that camera enforcement will never catch the truly dangerous motorists on our roads who choose to emulate the actions of such people as Deputy Chief of the TMPD Ndumiso Jaca, and place counterfeit number plates on their vehicles! They will simply continue to speed with impunity. It is also noted that the Minister has taken no action whatsoever in that matter and has merely mentioned it in passing in one of his speeches.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News, Crime & Transport Editors
DATE:	Monday 19 September, 2011
SUBJECT:	CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST TMPD DEPUTY CHIEF FORMALISED

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) hereby confirms that its National Chairman, Howard Dembovsky has laid formal criminal charges against Deputy Chief of the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department, Mr Ndumiso Jaca for violating Section 68 of the National Road Traffic Act.

The charges were laid at the Alberton SAPS station on Friday 16 September 2011 and a docket with the reference CAS 413/9/2011 was registered on the same day. It is expected that the docket will be forwarded to SAPS Pretoria for action. The charges that have been brought are in terms of Section 68(1) and 68(2)(b) of the National Road Traffic Act, 1996 and are of similar severity as drunk driving, “reckless or negligent driving” and fraud. They are not a simple traffic fine issue as some seem to believe.

This has resulted from the revelation on Monday 12 September 2011 that Deputy Chief Jaca had affixed to two distinctly different motor vehicles with what were at the time false number plates reading “BALTY GP”.

One plate was affixed to a Harley Davidson V-Rod motorcycle that is registered in the name of the president of the Sopranos Biker Club, Mr Moraka Ephraim Mokoka and the others were fitted to a BMW Z4 coupe which was both unroadworthy and unregistered as of Monday 12 September 2011.

In addition, the BMW Z4 has (or had at that time) blue flashing lights fitted inside its windscreen and it has allegedly been observed on several occasions driving in the emergency lane on the Mabopane highway with them flashing.

On Monday 12 September, a formal complaint by JPSA was drafted and sent to National Traffic Police Chief, David Tembe, CEO of the RTMC, Collins Letsoalo, Senior Executive Manager of the RTMC, Ashref Ismail, Acting Registrar of the RTIA, Japh Chuwe and Advocate Poopedi of the ICD. The complaint was also copied to spokesman for the Minister and Department of Transport, Logan Maistry as well as to Captain Mbada at SAPS Gauteng Commander, General Petros’ office.

The results of this complaint have been that the ICD confirmed an investigation into corruption had been launched against Mr Jaca and that a complaint was lodged with the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Internal Affairs Department by one of David Tembe’s staff on his instruction as Chief of the National Traffic Police. Ashref Ismail of the RTMC stated on radio that no criminal charges had been laid because the vehicles were on private property at the time that the photographs were taken.

Additionally, the Mayor of Tshwane has launched an “administrative enquiry” into the matter and has extended Mr Jaca two weeks to respond to the matter.

It is vitally important to understand that the National Road Traffic Act has no requirement for proof to be furnished that a vehicle fitted with counterfeit plates has been operated on a public road and that it additionally defines the mere manufacture and/or possession of such plates a criminal offence.

Until Friday 16 September 2011, no criminal matter had been brought against Mr Jaca and it was clear that none would be forthcoming unless JPSA did so, since there is clear cronyism being practiced in this matter. Any civilian accused of a similar crime would have been summarily arrested and charged immediately when the matter arose, but clearly Mr Jaca is considered to be an untouchable who is additionally thought to be above the law due to his position.

Since the emergence of this matter, Mr Jaca has been very busy indeed during the course of last week, having roadworthied, registered and licenced the vehicle which he bought in May 2008 after it was written off and deregistered on 3 March 2008. Below are the indisputable facts on this matter:

On Monday 12 September 2011, it was revealed that Mr Jaca had affixed these number plates to two (not just one) vehicles – prior to “BALTY GP” even existing on the eNaTIS database. They were therefore counterfeit at that time. The BMW was also unroadworthy, unregistered and unlicensed at that time.
On Tuesday 13 September 2011, he roadworthied the vehicle at the Randburg Licensing Testing Station in Johannesburg despite him being resident and employed in the Tshwane Metropolitan area.
On Wednesday 14 September 2011, he registered the vehicle and the personalised plate “BALTYGP”, which in turn relates to a newly registered Gauteng number plate applicable to this vehicle at the vehicle at Mabopane Licensing Department in Pretoria. This vehicle is now registered as a built up (code 3) vehicle.
On Thursday 15 September 2011, he licenced the vehicle at the vehicle at Mabopane Licensing Department in Pretoria.

It would appear that Mr Jaca, whose biker nickname is "Balty" is under the impression that by now having registered the vehicle and his previously false number plate, all will be forgiven and he will no longer be deemed as to have committed a crime. If only it were that simple, there can be no doubt that scores of other criminals would simply undo their crimes by complying with the law after they have been caught breaking it.

It must be noted that the laying of these criminal charges has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal vendettas against Mr Jaca and I don’t even know him, nor do I have any personal issues at all with him. It is not however in the interests of justice and equality under the framework of South Africa’s laws to knowingly allow any person to commit a crime and not report it since that in itself is also a crime. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong - simple.

Furthermore, no ordinary citizen would have been afforded the leniency and preparedness to turn a blind eye to any crimes they have committed which Mr Jaca has been afforded by the various authorities concerned. Doing so is not justice; it is a gross injustice on the part of all concerned and sends an entirely inappropriate message to all South Africans.

Contacts:

Howard Dembovsky – 082 418 6210 -

eNaTIS BALTY GP

BALTYGP1

BALTYGP2

BALTYGP3

Please note that personal particulars and detailed information relating to the legal registration of this plate and vehicle have been partially obscured from these images to protect Mr Jaca’s privacy and prevent criminal activity by those who clone vehicles etc.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News & Transport Editors
DATE:	Tuesday, 13 September, 2011
SUBJECT:	JPSA calls for charges of attempted murder to be brought against homicidal taxi driver

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) has called for a charge of attempted murder to be brought against the homicidal minibus taxi driver who hit and dragged a female pedestrian some 700 metres in Lonehill Boulevard this morning.

When a distressed caller called Talk Radio 702 at around 06:30 this morning, JPSA immediately contacted National Traffic Police Chief David Tembe and JMPD Operations Director Joyce Maribe who both immediately dispatched units to Lonehill.

Concerned motorists chased the taxi and passengers apparently continually screamed at the driver to stop. Eventually the taxi came to a halt outside the Lonehill Fire Station where EMS staff tended to her injuries and transported her to hospital in a critical condition. It has since emerged that the taxi driver was involved in a hit and run prior to hitting and dragging the pedestrian.

SAPS have taken the taxi driver into custody and say they will charge him with reckless or negligent driving.

However if there has ever been a valid argument for bringing a charge of attempted murder, this is it and the State will have no problem in proving this charge, given the high volume of witnesses both in and outside of the taxi. The secondary charge of reckless or negligent driving can also be brought but is our (and the authorities) opinion that the main charge should be attempted murder, provided that the victim survives.

“The matter has been discussed between JPSA, David Tembe and Joyce Maribe and we all concur that the most appropriate charge here is attempted murder” said Howard Dembovsky, JPSA National Chairman. We will be contacting Lonehill SAPS shortly.

JPSA would like to extend its sincere congratulations to all parties concerned in acting in this matter, especially to Talk Radio 702 and all of the members of the public who got involved.

Contacts:

Howard Dembovsky – 082 418 6210
Joyce Maribe (JMPD) – 082 495 2747
David Tembe (NTP)

UPDATE

When Howard Dembovsky called Douglasdale SAPS and spoke to Lieutenant Letsoalo, he was lambasted and asked "why do you think you can tell the police how to do their jobs? We were there." This matter has been escalated to David Tembe who is now speaking to a General about the matter.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News & Transport Editors
DATE:	Monday, 12 September, 2011
SUBJECT:	JPSA lays official complaint with various parties against N Jaca of TMPD for false number plates on his vehicles

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa has laid an official complaint for criminal charges to be brought against Deputy Chief of the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department (TMPD), for violating the National Road Traffic Regulations by allegedly affixing and displaying false number plates on two vehicles operated by him.

The story emerged on Talk Radio 702 Eyewitness news at 06:00 this morning where it was revealed that Ndumiso Jaca has two motor vehicles – a Harley Davidson motorcycle and a BMW Z4 motor car, both of which bear the number plate “BALTY GP”. JPSA has confirmed that this number plate does not exist on the eNaTIS database, so not only is it inapplicable to both of the vehicles that it is displayed on but is completely made up – and false.

In terms of the National Road Traffic Regulations, it is a criminal offence for any person to display a number plate and/or licence disk that is inapplicable to that vehicle and accordingly, any person doing so is guilty of an offence.

The official complaint has been lodged with the Chief of the National Traffic Police, who have jurisdiction throughout the Republic of South Africa, as well as with high ranking officials at the RTMC and the ICD.

Said National Chairman of JPSA, Howard Dembovsky “This is a criminal offence and any member of the public would face arrest and be charged accordingly and there is no reason that Jaca should not receive the identical treatment. It is of no consequence that he is allegedly being taken to task by the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality as this is a criminal matter and must be dealt with by law enforcement and the courts.”

We find it appalling that a high ranking Metro Police officer could see fit to set such a bad example for his staff and the public alike by engaging in this criminal activity and feel that Jaca must face the full might of the law.

We most certainly will be following this case up to its logical conclusion.

BALTY GP

eNaTIS BALTY GP

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News & Transport Editors
DATE:	Monday, 22 August 2011
SUBJECT:	AARTO is being side-lined once again

For some obscure reason, the Gauteng eTolling issue is receiving a lot of focus and the fact that the AARTO summit has not taken place and is once again being put off has received none. We are not saying that the eTolling issue is unimportant, but what we are saying is that AARTO is equally if not more important as it affects the entire nation.

JPSA has learned that the AARTO summit that was originally announced to take place in June, then July and was then was again put off for August has now been put off once again for some time in September. We fear that if things continue like this, it will continue being put off indefinitely and no progress will be made, leading to a further loss of credibility.

I have personally written and published an open letter/commentary to Transport Minister Sibosiso Ndebele and have published it at http://bit.ly/oquyz3 in which a number of salient questions are asked and I encourage all to go and read its entire content and demand some answers.

The main points contained therein are:

Why is AARTO constantly being delayed and why is no progress apparently being made?
Why has the AARTO summit been postponed over and over again and why is there still no concrete date for it?
Why is it that South African motorists constantly ask the question of us: “is the points demerit system in play yet” and “when will it come into play”? Surely the time to start behaving on our roads is right now – not just when it could mean that your licence can be suspended.
Why are South Africans being allowed to die on our roads in their droves when a points demerit system is rearing to go and we all know that it will have a marked impact on reducing bad driver behaviour and as a result, road fatalities?
Why is the fact that AARTO had been and is being unlawfully applied by the JMPD, for over 14 months now being ignored by the Minister when he has full knowledge them doing so?
Why has JPSA been forced to go to the Public Protector for assistance in this matter, when a simple instruction from the RTIA and/or Department of Transport to the JMPD would have sufficed?

Surely the time has come to get on with doing what we say is going to happen instead of constantly speaking of action and then failing to carry it out.

JPSA MEDIA STATEMENT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TO:	All News Editors
DATE:	Tuesday, 19 July 2011
SUBJECT:	SUMMONSES FOR N1 SOUTH “DIEPKLOOF INTERCHANGE 2009 OFFENCES”

JOHANNESBURG – Justice Project South Africa (JPSA) has today become aware of the fact that criminal summonses for alleged infringements and offences incurred at the stated site of “N1 south at/near diepkloof interchange (construction)" or “N1 DIEPKLOOF INTERCHANGE (CONSTRUCTI0N SITE)” as it appears in the notices issued during 2009, are now being served by the JMPD, 28 months after the original dates of the alleged infringements.

We would like to encourage any motorists who have been served with Section 54 summonses under the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to these alleged offences at this site to contact us urgently so that we may assist them in these matters.

To easily identify the images that will pertain to this site (947) please see the image below.

N1 N12 Split

We have a team of attorneys ready and willing to represent all such affected people and they will do so at no expense to the accused persons provided that their alleged recorded speed is below 161 km/h.

Any other motorists who have not received summonses but did receive AARTO 03 infringement notices at that time for the same site with an image similar to that shown are also encouraged to make contact with us so we may assist them, regardless of whether they have paid these fines or not.

Motorists are further advised not to pay any admission of guilt fines for notices or summonses for this site at that time as they are the subject of a criminal investigation by the SAPS for fraud.

Affected parties may contact Howard Dembovsky on 081 302 3694 or via email at .

Title

Release Date

Formats

CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST TMPD DEPUTY CHIEF FORMALISED

2011/09/19

AARTO is being side-lined once again

2011/08/22

SUMMONSES FOR N1 DIEPKLOOF INTERCHANGE 2009 “OFFENCES”

2011/07/19

This page was last updated on Wednesday 22 May, 2013