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.

The latest AARTO 09 documents have two extra zeros on them:

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.

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 – 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.

The allegedly drunk driver, Sibusiso Langa, who mowed down 6 runners training for the Soweto Marathon last Saturday morning was on Friday 22 October 2011, granted R80,000 bail in the Pretoria Magistrates Court. His driving licence has also been suspended as part of his bail conditions.

Following this, the RTMC's Ashref Ismail lauded this action, saying: "We welcome both the R80 000 bail and the suspension of his driver's license... we want this condition to be upheld for all cases of drunken driving." So too does Justice Project South Africa as a much more clear message must be sent to people who think it is clever to drink and then drive.

Some people are however outraged by the fact that Langa has been granted bail at all, given the fact that he has been charged with 5 counts of murder, one of attempted murder and one of driving under the influence of alcohol. The "murder" charges are what have given rise to this outrage and I would like to add a little perspective to this so that we all understand my and JPSA's standpoint on this matter.

Firstly, denying bail to him as a drunk driver who killed 5 people would not stand up in court. He did not take a gun and go on a shooting spree, he got hammered and then lost control of his vehicle, causing the deaths of those poor people. The court has forbidden him from driving until his case has been finalised, thereby effectivly "disarming" him.

You may remember that immediately after hearing about this incident last Saturday, we did a number of things. We contacted the authorities and offered to have the blood samples taken form Langa analysed by a private lab to speed things up. We also appealed to the NPA and all concerned to stick to the appropriate charges of driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless or negligent driving and culpable homicide and urged them to resist the temptation to charge him with murder. At that stage, we didn't even know who he was, just that a drunk driver had killed 5 people. We even organised a well respected forensic crash investigator with more than 30 years experience to investigate the circumstances of the crash for free.

Fat lot of good all that did since we have not been given any of the information or cooperation on the part of the authorities to get the blood tests done for them! In fact, we have been blindly ignored in totality. As for the murder charge, the ever emotional Minister of Transport came out on Sunday demanding that murder charges be brought against Langa. I was not surprised, but I was disappointed - after all, what the hell do I know about prosecuting people, given the fact that my prosecution success rate when I was a policeman was a mere 100%?

So, on Monday 24 October, the accused stood before the Pretoria Magistrates Court for his bail hearing, charged with 5 counts of murder, one of attempted murder and one of driving under the influence of alcohol. No surprise there since the Minister has way more influence than I will ever have. His bail hearing was then remanded to Friday 28 October and bail set at R80 000 with a suspension of his driving licence. In the meantime it emerged that one of his victims was the wife of a senior prosecutor at the Pretoria Magistrates Court.

This should have started the alarm bells ringing, but apparently that was not the case in this matter. At his first appearance regional magistrate Maryke de la Rey explained to Langa that if he is found guilty of murder, the law on minimum sentences stipulates that a first-time offender must get 15 years' imprisonment.

All of that sounds impressive too, but what is really mind-boggling is this is that this case could already have been laid down for trial by now if the prosecution just stuck to the book. The jail sentence allowable for driving under the influence of alcohol is 6 years. For reckless or negligent driving is also 6 years. And the jail sentence allowable for culpable homicide is a further 3 years per count. Cumulatively, that makes 27 years behind bars and I can say without any fear of contradiction that very few murder convictions in South Africa have ever got that long in prison.

Why then is this chap being charged with murder? What he did is despicable beyond description, but is it really murder? Not the way that I see it, no matter how the legal eagles try and argue dolus eventualis with me. The emotional outcries and demands for revenge to be exacted are quite understandable on an emotional level, but they unfortunately have no place in the criminal justice system.

This is a clear case of drunk driving gone wrong and in America, a charge of "vehicular manslaughter" exists and would be brought. But it is not so in South Africa and therefore the deficiencies of the law leads to people trying to bring a greater charge than is really catered for by the circumstances. There are only two charges available and those are murder and culpable homicide - with nothing in-between. Langa's case is neither premeditated murder nor culpable homicide as there is an element of recklessness but not intent in its most clinical definition.

Sure, Langa should have realised that if he was going to get hammered and then drive, then he could have been involved in what people like to call an "accident" - which is a word that by its very meaning negates the argument of premeditated murder. But I ask you this: Just how many people go out with the intention to get blind drunk to then kill people? Yes, muderers sometimes do, but then they usually use guns, knives and the like to commit the crime. They don't generally use motor vehicles - particularly not motor vehicles that cost nearly R1 million to buy!

Langa's case is entirely different to that of the taxi driver who ran over and dragged Kim McCusker for 700 metres six weeks ago - where we were the first to call for attempted murder charges. It is also significantly different to the taxi driver in Pretoria who was in fact convicted of murder for following and mowing down a scooter rider in 2009. In both of those cases, the driver made the decision to attack their victims with their vehicles.

In this case, like the JubJub case, the death and injury of the victims was as a result of a crash where the driver lost control of his vehicle. They did not point their vehicles at groups of people and say to themselves "now I am going to kill you." If they did, then murder is a no-brainer and will not be difficult to prove. The JubJub case is now 19 months old and still the case has not been concluded. Family of the children slaughtered by him have not seen justice - all they have seen is more clever legal defence being presented. But the NPA says that the case is going just fine, so we will have to wait and see what results from it.

Langa will not, I assure you, be looking for a legal aid attorney to defend him. He can afford and will get the best that money can buy and I would not be at all surprised if his case takes two or more years to wrap up; and I will be even less surprised if he is acquitted of the charges of murder. The families of the victims will have to endure a painful and lengthy process that could in fact be considerably shortened and still achieve the desired result of putting this man behind bars if things were not complicated by emotional decisions on the part of the prosecution.

I feel nothing for him and only wish that there was such a charge as vehicular manslaughter in this country, but there isn't and I again reiterate that premeditated murder and culpable homicide are two distinctly different things. The burden of proof in any criminal case lays on the State and it is going to be up to them to establish intent, which I really, really doubt that they will be able to do in a truly impartial court. But that is just it - is the Pretoria Magistrates Court at all impartial, given that one of its own's loved one was killed by Langa?

Even if he is found guilty, what makes anyone believe that he will not take the matter to appeal? If he does that, then the process will be further delayed and in 5 years' time he will still be walking around a free man. Fortunately, he will literally have to walk or be chauffeured around as he is forbidden from driving but let's be honest and ask ourselves just what chance he stands of being caught even if he does violate his bail conditions and drive. For that matter, if he again drives drunk and doesn't crash, what chance is there of him being caught and prosecuted, given that corruption is so rife at the moment and very few legitimate roadblocks are set up?

If the traffic authorities were doing their jobs more effectively, then maybe, just maybe, he would be facing drunk driving charges only and 5 lives would not have been lost and another demolished by his thoughtless actions. But ask yourself when last you were asked to blow in a beathalyser and I guarantee that most people will not be able to remember when last it was - if ever. Then ask those who have been asked to do so what happened if they were over the limit?

Some 20,000 people have been arrested for drunk driving in 11 months, but that is simply a drop in the ocean and what is more important is that some 3% of them have in fact been convicted. This should be ringing the warning bells loud and clear and telling us that we have to change the way we do things if we want to see any change coming about.

Prevention is way better than cure and I really don't think that charging people with murder is the solution. We need to make the idea of drunk driving a social no-no and make those who do it to be seen as the scum of the earth and social outcasts. But we need to do that by catching them before they kill anyone. Punishing one or two in the most severe way possible is a great theory, but in practice it achieves little as it does not create a strong impression that it can easily happen to you. The other big danger here is that if murder is going to be the charge for culpable homicide that results from drunk driving, then what is to stop the State from simply disposing of "driving under the influence of alcohol" and making that "attempted murder" straight off the bat? We need to tackle this sensibly and make amendments to intoxicated driving laws - not try and squeeze cases into other charges that were not designed for this purpose.

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.

The saga of Ndumiso Jaca has been a sustained and intriguing one, revealing more and more examples of this Deputy Chief of one of the largest Metropolitan Police Departments in the country outwardly and brazenly flaunting the law.

But there is now very clear evidence to the fact that comeraderie amongst the corrupt thugs in the TMPD exists and exposes a Department that is rotten to the core. It is quite clear that a grand scale investigation into everyone in the TMPD is going to have to be launched by the Hawks.

The saga so far...

On 12 September 2011, Barry Bateman of Eyewitness News broke a story of a man who has the identical, counterfeit number plates fitted to two completely separate vehicles, a Harley Davidson V-Rod motorcycle and a BMW Z4 coupe motor car.

The “sensation” caused by this story sent shock waves through the media and the public at large; with everyone asking just how it could be that such a senior, supposed law enforcement official could so overtly flaunt a law with which he should in fact be more than fully versed.

The offices of the City Manager and the Mayor hauled Jaca into a meeting on the same day that the story broke and set in motion a course of events that saw Jaca making moves to now comply with the law after the fact, in an overr attempt to undo his crimes that had gone before.

The course of events that surrounded the BMW Z4 was quite astounding – and as investigations would reveal and these included that:

• On 3 March 2008, the BMW Z4 in question, which at that time bore the number plate SGM***GP was marked as a write off on the eNaTIS vehicle registry.
• Shortly thereafter, in May 2008, Jaca bought this vehicle from Salvage Management Solutions and took possession of it.
• During the period that followed, Jaca obviously made repairs to the vehicle and placed counterfeit number plates on it, reading BALTY GP.
• It has emerged that he then proceeded to use this car on the road, without subjecting it to a roadworthy test, registering or licensing it.
• On 1 May 2009, whilst driving it on the M1 motorway in Johannesburg, the vehicle was snapped from behind, as is the usual modus operandi by speed trappers, doing 100km/h in an 80km/h zone. This “Kodak moment” was then captured on the JMPD’s Gismo system, but no fine was issued because the number plate was false and no details appeared on the eNaTIS registry. It was therefore archived as untracable.
• On 12 September 2011, Barry Bateman broke the story and Jaca was hauled into the Mayor’s office and asked to explain himself.
• On 13 September 2011, Jaca took the vehicle to the Randburg testing station in the jurisdiction of the JMPD and had the vehicle roadworthied.
• On 14 September 2011, he went and registered the vehicle at the Mabopane Licensing authority in Pretoria.
• On 15 September 2011, he licensed the vehicle at the Mabopane Licensing authority in Pretoria. In his and obviously the Mayor of Tshwane’s opinions - crime undone.

But is it as easy as all that to erase a crime and if so, then surely anyone else accused of a crime could do exactly the same thing? Well, as much as the limited capacity to understand what constitutes a crime and what doesn’t on the part of Jaca and his co-conspirators exists, the fact still remains that a crime (or several of them) was committed and no amount of undoing can change that.

In fact, this attempt to take a shower after the fact has merely further established his guilt and established Jaca to be a criminal of epic proportion. He has also clearly attempted to lie his way out of trouble by allegedly representing to the Mayor that he had not used the car on a public road and that he thought it was registered.

I say “allegedly” because the Executive Mayor of Tshwane has, instead of exercising good governance and transparency, with respect to his so-called “investigation”, refused to make public the findings of that investigation – even now when it has been revealed that his trusted side-kick has been caught out lying to him.

Since the Mayor put Jaca on "special leave" , a number of other things have also come to light, including him promoting 5 of his buddies to key posts, after he was "suspended" and then on Friday 7 October 2011, the Minister of Transport himself apparently reacted with “shock” to the photograph of Jaca driving his beloved BMW Z4, roof down and talking on his cell phone whilst driving with no seatbelt on in Pretoria traffic. So engrossed in his conversation was dear old "Balty" that he even failed to notice the unlawful window washer standing on the bumper of the truck stopped at the traffic lights through which he was driving!

So where does this leave everything?

Well, it is a fact that I laid a complaint with the RTMC, National Traffic Police and ICD immediately on 12 September 2011. It is also a fact that the complaint was copied to Logan Maistry, Transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele’s long time spin doctor and that failed to hit the mark.

The ICD immediately launched an investigation on Jaca for corruption and that is ongoing, but after no proper action with respect to the traffic crime took place on the part of the RTMC and National Traffic Police, I also laid criminal charges against Jaca under the National Road Traffic Act with the SAPS on 16 September 2011.

Now it appears that the JMPD wish to proceed against Jaca as well and that is a good thing, since he committed a crime in their jurisdiction. Whilst it is certainly true that you cannot be prosecuted for the same crime more than once, no one has formally charged him yet and that is simply a crime in itself.

Someone is going to have to bite the bullet and formally charge this criminal with his crimes and I could not give a rat’s ass who that is, as long as they do it and as long as they convict him of his crime. If I was allowed to do it myself, believe me, I would have done so a long, long time ago – and I would have convicted him too – believe me.

Many people have asked why it is that I have taken such a keen interest and hard assed stance in this case and there have been plenty of Jaca supporters and new age racists that have tried to insinuate that it is a personal thing of some kind.

The fact is that I have never so much as set eyes on or spoken with Jaca, let alone met him and quite frankly, the only time I want to see him is in court. I have nothing whatsoever against him on a personal level, but on a professional level, I have more than a little axe to grind with him and all of those who are protecting him. They are all a disgrace to law enforcement and do not deserve to be called law enforcers.

Firstly, let’s just remember that this man holds a very senior post in law enforcement. Now let’s also remember that this role is specifically in traffic law enforcement. Even a civilian knows that they have to roadworthy, register and license a vehicle prior to using it on a public road and for him to claim ignorance the way he has points to one of two things. Either he is unqualified to be so much as a constable in a Metropolitan Police Department, or he simply doesn’t give a hoot what the law says. I suspect that it is the latter in light of some other stuff I know about his chequered past, but either way the fact still remains that he cannot claim ignorance of the law – which is not an excuse in any case.

His claim that he handed the role of registering his vehicle to so-called “agents” to deal with is nothing short of a crock of utter bollocks. Is he admitting that he is so ignorant of the process or corrupt that he would not have expected his vehicle to be roadworthied without being taken from or by him for testing? Is he admitting that he is so ignorant of the law or indeed, blind, that he would not have noticed that he had no licence disc in his windscreen? Is he admitting that he is so ignorant of the law as to think that registering one number plate entitles him to place that same number plate on two distinctly different vehicles? Of course that is what he is admitting since he clearly has no respect for the law and an attitude the size of the continent of Africa.

What is even more astounding is that the Executive Mayor and the City Manager of Tshwane are both apparently so gullible and/or ignorant as to buy into his so-called explanations and thereby admit that they too have severely limited capacity to understand the basics and identify when they are being spun a load of tripe. Either that or Jaca has something on them, but let’s not speculate shall we?

But were they gullible at all or did they just simply turn a blind eye to what Jaca was doing? Well, the latest revelation that some 20 people in the Tshwane Metropolitan Police administration were made aware of Jaca’s false number plates almost 12 months ago suggests that they could not be bothered with what is lawful and what is not! If they claim that they were unaware of that email, then it is not unreasonable to say that they have failed to monitor what is going on in their own corrupt Metropolitan Police Department and have allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes.

In fact, it is quite clear that it is not only Jaca that is a criminal but all of the recipients of that email are too since they have in fact defeated the ends of justice by willingly and knowingly allowing a crime to be and continue to be committed. They should all be prosecuted and jailed, along with their buddy!

The TMPD has a shocking reputation of abusive behaviour and maladministration and this latest episode does not only call into question the integrity of the almighty Ndumiso Jaca, but that of the entire senior management of the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department and, I believe, provides a very good reason for the TMPD to be brought under immediate administration in terms of Section 33 of the RTMC Act for non-compliance with national road traffic law enforcement code and to be disbanded, before it can do any more damage. The Hawks also need to do a comprehensive investigation into everyone in the TMPD as there are simply too many people involved in this incident to believe that corruption is not rife in the TMPD.

If the RTMC and Department of Transport does tackle the TMPD however, I would be the most surprised individual on the planet since they  do not seem to take seriously their roles in ensuring that traffic law enforcement is conducted properly. After all, they have simply sat back and passively spectated as this saga has unfolded, and then reacted with so-called "shock" when shown pictures. One has to ask just how much more of their insincere nonsense the public and I are expected to swallow?

Howard Dembovsky
National Chairman - Justice Project South Africa

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!

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.