Below is the exact contents of today's COSATU media release. Go on, join in. You know you want to!

COSATU rolling mass action on E-tolling and Labour Brokers

The Congress of South African Trade Unions is mobilizing its two million members for the mother of all protests against  the act of highway robbery set to be committed from 30 April 2012 - the Gauteng e-tolls!

The federation filed a Section 77 notice on 16 April 2012 which will enable workers to engage in protected protest action in the form of a national stay-away on the 30 April 2012.

As part of the mobilisation programme against the veiled privatisation and commodification of our roads through the e-tolling system, COSATU will be embarking on marches, pickets, rallies, sit-ins and freeway blockades across most of our provinces.

COSATU will also be undertaking various protest actions in different provinces as part of advancing our demand for the banning of labour brokers.

Details of the Protest Activities

Gauteng

·         Night vigil at the Tshwane Department of Roads and Transport on 25 April 2012

·         Picket at the SANRAL offices on 25 April 2012 from 12h00-14h00

·         Pickets at the Tshwane Department of Roads and Transport on 26 April 2012 from 15h00

·         Freeway/Toll Road Action on  30 April 2012.

North West

·         Night Vigil at the Swartruggens toll gate on the 20 and 21 April 2012

Eastern Cape

·         Provincial marches on 21 April 2012 in East London, Port Elizabeth, Mthatha and Lusikisiki

·         Workplace lunch hour demonstrations and pickets from 26-30 April 2012

Free State

·         Joint local Shop Stewards council on 21 April 2012, Bloemfontein

·         Workplace lunch hour pickets and demonstrations from 23-24 April 2012

Western Cape

·         Occupation/Siyalalala/Sit-in at the Provincial Department of Labour offices on 23 April 2012

·         Workplace lunch time pickets and demonstrations 24^th April 2012 at Epping Bofor Circle - Montague Gardens and Woolworths distribution centre in Montague Drive

COSATU is confident that that the 30^th April actions we will be joined by thousands of angry residents and motorists who support our demand for the scrapping of the e-tolling system.

COSATU strongly believes that the pressure of the masses is crucial to forcing government to back down on this blatant extortion. Our aim is to make the tolls uncollectible and force the government and SANRAL to find more equitable ways to pay for road improvements.

We urge all members of the public, across different parts of South Africa, to pledge support for the campaign by joining the protest actions and by defying the call to purchase e-tags.

Phindile Kunene (Shopsteward Magazine Editor)

Congress of South African Trade Unions

P.O.Box 1019

Johannesburg

2000

South Africa

Tel: +27 11 339-4911/24

Fax: +27 11 339-5080 / 6940

Mobile: +27 79 167 9544 or 82  494 2409

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

JOHANNESBURG - Several weeks after announcing "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" on the SANRAL website and in media releases sent out to the press, SANRAL has commissioned auditing firm Deloitte & Touche to conduct a "forensic investigation" into the matter.  This has come after Howard Dembovsky of Justice Project SA sent an email to several parties at SANRAL, including but not limited to its CEO Nazir Alli enquiring why it was that such a claim had been made without him so much as being contacted to shed any light on the matter.

The word "unequivocally" means "leaving no doubt and/or unambiguous" and one has to ask why SANRAL chose to put the cart before the horse in issuing such a definitive statement and only initiating an investigation several weeks after doing so. But putting the cart before the horse seems to be the manner in which SANRAL operates and this is evident by the entire saga that has surrounded the Open Road Tolling (eTolling) issue of the Johannesburg and Pretoria freeways.

"I can confirm that I have met with Advocate Tommy Prins of Deloitte & Touche and have furnished him with information that has come into my possession" said Dembovsky. "I can also confirm that I have visited the Linksfield Road onramp to the N3 South freeway during the course of this week and have filmed the entire stretch of the onramp where it was claimed by SANRAL that their staff were doing road markings and there are no new markings, and indeed no markings associated with tolling on that onramp" he said.

Several people have claimed that they were stopped in the roadblock that took place on Sunday 22 January and one has even stated that she was told that if she did not register there and then, she would be given a "spot fine" of R4,500, which she would have to pay immediately. Because these people wish to remain anonymous and not risk reprisals or intimidation, SANRAL has chosen to label their statements as "rumours".

It is not at all uncommon for people to feel threatened and worried that if they come forward with information they will be targeted and thereby put themselves and their families at risk. To the contrary, this fear is a very real one and little or nothing has been done to allay these fears.

However, this having been said, JPSA would like to appeal to anyone who was affected by this or any other "roadblock" to contact Advocate Prins directly - or if they would be more comfortable doing so, to approach JPSA who will keep their personal details strictly confidential if they do not wish to be named.

It is interesting to note that, despite commissioning this "independent forensic investigation" on 7 February 2012 , SANRAL seems to have chosen to keep this fact quite and it has been left to JPSA to call for members of the public to come forward with information. Surely if SANRAL really wants to get to the bottom of this, one would think that they would have shouted from the rooftops that they have commissioned this investigation? It is difficult to imagine how an investigation into this matter can succeed if no witness statements are sought and 11 days after the investigation has been launched.

Anyone who is prepared to provide information on this mysterious event is urged to contact any one of the following people urgently:

Deloitte & Touche

Advocate Tommy 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

Please see details here and ask for Howard Dembovsky.

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

Khulubuse Zuma, the nephew of President Jacob Zuma and Aurora Empowerment Systems boss, has been arrested and tried for speeding in Ballito after his silver, convertible Maserati, was clocked at 181km/h.

Zuma, who is also chairman of the embattled gold mining company Aurora Empowerment Systems, was apprehended by Road Traffic Inspectorate officials in Ballito, on the KZN North Coast on January 9.

He was believed to have been in the company of his mother at the time.

He was arrested and taken to the Umhlali police station on January 9. The following day he appeared in the Umhlali Magistrate’s Court where he pleaded guilty and was handed a R3 000 fine.

According to police and RTI sources the vehicle was registered to Viglietti Motors in Cape Town. Manager Gareth Crossley said he could not confirm if the car had been loaned to Zuma or if he was a client.

“I cannot say anything. If we loaned him the car or if he is a prospective buyer is confidential,” said Crossley.

KZN police spokesman Captain Thulani Zwane confirmed the case. – IOL Staff Reporter

JPSA Responds

During December 2011, Transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele stated that "all motorists arrested for traffic offences must have their driving licenses seized and suspended/cancelled." Collins Letsoalo, acting CEO of the RTMC was very quick to jump on the bandwagon, stating that section 25(1)(b) of the National Road Traffic Act gives him the power to do this. Several reports citing tens of thousands of driving licence suspensions/cancellations then also followed.

Now it emerges that Khulubuse Zuma has pleaded guilty to driving at 181km/h in an undefined speed limit zone. At best, he would have been 61km/h over the speed limit -at worst 141km/h since Ballito has speed limits of 40km/h. Either way, since 20 November 2010, it has been law that anyone exceeding the speed limit in an urban area by more than 30km/h and outside an urban area by more than 40km/h must have their driving licence suspended by the court unless mitigating circumstances of considerable proportion are found.

So here we have a man who, by merely bearing a favourable surname is sentenced to a R3000 fine and has no other consequences imposed on him when other motorists have had fines of five times that imposed on them and have had their driving licenses suspended. This incident happened on 9 January 2012 and once again, Sibusiso Ndebele, despite launching his tirades about how lawlessness on our roads has said absolutely nothing about this. No doubt he will once again say that people like us are "distracting public attention from the real road safety issues" when we say that making fish of one and fowl of the other sends the wrong message.

I personally, and many others like me, am sick to death of the Minister and his sidekick, Collins Letsoalo blowing smoke up everyone's behinds. In their opinions, "speed kills", but only if it is not their or their friends' vehicles involved!

Why it is that we as South Africans accept this kind of bull is completely beyond me. We must band together and demand that Ndebele and Letsoalo step down and that our Constitution is adhered to by giving every person equal treatment under the law. These two individuals are not Magistrates but they do have the power to ensure that the laws Ndebele enacts are adhered to by all involved. They simply don't seem to care, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't, now does it?

With effect from 20 November 2010, the National Road Traffic Act demands that on conviction of certain offences, the driving licence of any person convicted of these offences shall be suspended for minimum periods. Amongst these offences are hit and run crashes, reckless or negligent driving, driving under the influence of alcohol and excessive speeding.  Since it came into play tens of thousands of driving licenses have been suspended and/or cancelled (according to the Department of Transport) but there have also been numerous cases where "high-profile" individuals have not suffered this fate. Consistency in application of the law is very important, however it is quite clear that the law in South Africa is being applied on a basis of who you are, not what you have done.

Below is Section 35 of the National Road Traffic Act and I certainly don't see any reference to exemptions under it - do you?

Authored and commented by Howard Dembovsky

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.

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.”

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.

Transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele has ordered an investigation into a fake licence scam in Johannesburg. 

According to a report by The Star today (Tuesday, 18 October), fake learner's and driving licences are being sold across Johannesburg for between R800 and R4 500. The Star investigation claimed to have found that fake licences were available at four of the five City of Johannesburg testing centres.

They were primarily organised by car guards and instructors from "fly by night" driving schools who work with centre examiners. At Langlaagte a licence cost R4 500, at Randburg and Florida R2 500, and in Sandton R2 700. The cheapest learner's licence was R800.

“Fraud and corruption will not be tolerated at any licensing centre. Therefore, we have instructed the National Traffic Police to investigate allegations of a fake licence scam in Johannesburg."

Yesterday (Monday, 17 October), a traffic officer [from the National Traffic Police] and motorist appeared in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court for bribery and corruption. On Sunday (16 October 2011), the traffic officer was arrested in Pretoria East for allegedly accepting a R100 bribe from the motorist on Saturday (15 October).

The motorist was also arrested for bribing the traffic officer. Over the past year, several officials and members of the public have been arrested for fraud and corruption related to vehicle and driver licensing. We want to re-iterate our warning to any person who involves themselves in such activities, that we will leave no stone unturned in such matters. Those who accept a bribe, as well as those who offer the bribe, will face the full might of the law. We are also calling upon the public to report such criminal activities to the National Traffic Call Centre on 0861 400 800,”said Minister Ndebele.

JPSA Comment:

It is very encouraging to see that Minister Ndebele is taking this matter seriously. However, it is doubtful that the National Traffic Police have the resources and/or expertise to deal with such an investigation, much less to actually deal with it effectively. This is not intended to demean the National Traffic Police in any way, but they are traffic police, not investigators and they are certainly not equipped to deal with corruption and fraud investigations. They are therefore not a cure-all either.

I once again find myself asking if Minister Ndebele understands the problem or whether he is simply reacting in order to circumstances without considering how to effectively tackle the problem?

Sadly, whilst the National Traffic police pitching up in their mighty Ford Everests, blue lights flashing and sirens blaring may scare these operations underground for a little while, I have little doubt that they will not address the problem effectively.

A complete revamp of the Driving Licence Testing Centre system is required, and this will have to include comprehensive counter-corruption and fraud regimes that have been thoroughly thought out and properly implemented if any of it is to be effective.

Given that 4 out of 5 testing centres under the control of one individual at the JMPD are allegedly involved in these activities, it is also necessary to hold Director Gerneke accountable for what is going on in his testing centres.

Howard Dembovsky.