Guideline: Vehicle registration requirement by Gauteng after 30 days in the Province

The Premier of Gauteng noted during his State of the Province address on Monday (19 February), that the province’s new number plates support a national plan which still needs to be finalised by the National Department of Transport.

“The National Department of Transport has developed a draft legislative proposal for the harmonisation of national plates, which includes the security features we want on Gauteng’s new number plates.”

At the launch of the Gauteng-Vuma Cam partnership last week, Lesufi said that “we (Gauteng) are starting afresh, all of us; every person that has a car must re-register and get a new registration number that cannot be copied and is reliable, so that we know what is happening in our province.”

“Everyone must register their vehicle … If you spend 30 consecutive days in Gauteng, it means your car must be registered in Gauteng.”

Here is a vehicle registration guideline (PDF) to assist members in the misperception now created through the statements of the Gauteng Premier.

Members are welcome to contact the Association.

Roadblocks and Your Rights

“Roadblocks and Your Rights” featured on the Carte Blanche website on 20 August 2017 provides useful insight into:

  • The two kinds of roadblock
  • What cops are legally allowed to do
  • What happens if you have outstanding fines
  • Under what conditions arrests are allowed
  • What to do if you feel unsafe
  • Can you film the police?
  • Can you ask for identification?

Read the full article here:

SAVRALA welcomes setting up of e-toll panel

PRESS RELEASE: 27 June, 2014

SAVRALA welcomes setting up of e-toll panel

Southern African Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (SAVRALA) welcomes today’s announcement by the Gauteng Premiere to set up a panel to review the implementation of GFIP e-Tolls.

While its members complied with the 3 December implementation of e-Tolling last year, the industry has had to spend millions of rands to integrate the necessary e-Toll and e-Tag systems so that its customers could be billed.

Notwithstanding these investments and ongoing daily e-Toll administrative costs, SAVRALA would welcome an opportunity to participate on an e-Toll panel, as proposed by the Premiere Makhura, with a view to help find an agreeable, sustainable and efficient solution to fund much needed infrastructural upgrades while also noting the need to continue developing an integrated, reliable and efficient public transport system in Gauteng.

Editorial contacts: ADZOO – Manfred Noriskin-Ender 0829010342

SANRAL continues to mislead Public on eTolls


Press Release

1 Aug 2013

SANRAL continues to mislead Public on eTolls

According to reports, subsequent to the SANRAL media roundtable held 31 July 2013, SANRAL claims they ‘have been ready to start tolling for more than two years’. “We completely reject this claim,” says OUTA Chairperson, Wayne Duvenage. “If SANRAL were so efficient and their funding predicament was so serious, why are we still seeing a flurry of legislative amendments taking place over the past year? The regulatory environment forms part of the framework of readiness. Clearly they have failed themselves. We recall that SANRAL argued in the Constitutional Court in August 2012, they could and would launch eTolls within two weeks of the interdict being set aside. Almost a year has passed, and they are still beating about the bush.”

OUTA is also of the opinion that SANRAL has a significant problem with eToll payment enforcement, which is critical to the success of their plan. They have yet to publish the step-by-step enforcement process and OUTA believes that SANRAL have not yet figured out the details themselves, hoping that if and when they launch, they can intimidate or coerce enough people to buy into their eTag plan, before they have to implement court proceedings.

SANRAL is also disingenuous in their claims they are ‘merely an implementer of Government policy’. This statement downplays the enormous role performed by them as the primary agent who advised the Government for years on the eToll methodology and process. It was SANRAL that commissioned research from the Graduate School of Business (University of Cape Town) that proposed the cost benefit ratios, which formed a key motivation for eTolls (which was later disregarded by Government themselves in Parliament by Minister Sbu Ndebele on 28 October 2011). It was SANRAL who provided the misleading and inaccurate information on the costs of eTolling (R395m / annum) and other analysis presented to the Minister of Transport at the time, Mr Jeff Radebe. How they can now stand back and imply they are only trying to implement government policy, when they were highly instrumental in guiding and setting that policy, is simply absurd and outrageously misleading.

SANRAL also appears to operate in a universe disconnected from reality. They seek to continually dismiss their protractors, despite the fact that it includes people and entities from across the broad spectrum of society such as the COSATU, SA Local Government Association, national consumer groups, the Black Management Forum, virtually all opposition political parties, the Catholic Church and other religious bodies and the growing number of business groups and general public who have clearly rejected the eToll plan.

No matter how SANRAL wants to couch it, a collection cost of compliant users at 17% is grossly out of line with international benchmarks, which are in single digits, including defaulter costs. What makes this worse is their omission of the cost impact of the non-­-compliant road user in their total cost of collection, wherein they assume these will be recovered by the higher rates applied to those who don’t pay. If they don’t pay, they don’t pay.

Most important of all, SANRAL suggests that based on their data, 82.8% of road users will pay less than R100. What SANRAL have not answered is the impact of this R100 alone on households who are under such financial strain with increasing fuel, electricity, rates and basic food prices. In addition, SANRAL downplays the likely economic impact on households who would have to commute to work on the fully implemented eToll network. Road users are also fully aware that the rate of today is not the rate of tomorrow and that regardless of the rate, their money is being used to finance off-­-shore listed companies, which could in turn be used to fund more roads, schools, clinics and other social infrastructure here in South Africa.

Mr Vusi Mona, the Sanral Spokesperson stated in a press release on 31 August that “If you are one of those paying the maximum amount [R450 cap], you will have travelled through 301 gantries and done an average of 2 760 km during the month on the e-­-tolled roads. That is, of course, if you are fittedwith an e-­-tag and have an up-­-to-­-date registered account.” Yet when using Sanral’s own eToll calculator on their web site and taking an average of three different commuter routes at eTag rates during standard commuter times, we are able to rack up far less kms (ave 1598 km), through almost half the number of gantries (average of 163) to reach the R450 cap (R443) at an average of 28c / km. Once again, the public receive false and misleading information from SANRAL, and are then expected to believe SANRAL’s average spend data and statistics.

SANRAL, as an agent of Government, has the opportunity to advise the Government on an alternative funding method through use of the Fuel Levy and other taxes, which is also within existing policy, in order to alleviate their financial plight. Indeed, recommendations from their own research has revealed the fuel levy to be the least cost (i.e. most efficient) to the road user. SANRAL therefore have an obligation to recommend that Government sit down with the various social partners and stakeholders to constructively rework the plan to fund the GFIP. Borrowed funds from the banks will simply be digging their financial hole deeper.

“Of one thing we are certain,” says Duvenage, “SANRAL most certainly cannot sit back and continue to produce misleading statements, or ‘hope’ the public will come around to accepting eTolls. Hope doesn’t drive change, action does, and until this grossly inefficient plan that enriches overseas investors at the expense of Gauteng road users is scrapped, they have no hope of changing in the hearts and minds of the majority of South African citizens about it.

960 words.

Contact: Wayne Duvenage. 082 884 6652



OUTA Press Release 26 June 2013


Following news of problems experienced by eTolling on Portugal’s SCUT Freeway eToll – as reported in an online article from (­- loss/28626) -­- OUTA envisages similar, if not worse, problems and concerns for the Gauteng eToll plan.

“Portugal’s eToll problems are very simplar to the type that we have envisaged for the SANRAL’s Gauteng tolling plan,” said Wayne Duvenage, the chairperson of OUTA. “In a country such as Portugal, where compliance and administration efficiency is much higher than in South Africa, it is evident that tolling projects of this nature are subject to a certain level of citizen rejection. Judging by Portugal’s eToll project which has seen a 19% non payment rate by road users, you can rest assured that matters of non-­-compliance will be far worse here for SANRAL, following the outrage and general public rejection of their plans to toll Gauteng’s freeways.”

The Portuguese project has been fraught with lower than anticipated revenue collections, and collection administration costs now as high as 29% of the revenues generated and getting worse. According to Antonio Ramalho (the Chief Executive of the EP concessionaire for Portugal’s SCUT eToll project), in May, the cars travelling on SCUT motorways without an electronic tagging device cost as much to bill as the amount they pay for using the toll road. He went on to say “The system is unsustainable and we hope it doesn’t stay the way it is.”

The article has also raised concerns as to the profitability of charging tolls on previously unpaid or so-­-called SCUT motorways. OUTA warns of similar concerns raised here in Gauteng and the South African authorities would do this country a favour by preventing an embarrassing situation from getting worse. “We urge them not to ignore the signs that point to a rapid failure of the Gauteng eToll project, one which has experienced massive rejection by society. It doesn’t take much to realize that eTolling in Gauteng will be an absolute mess and is unsustainable”, said Duvenage who further suggested that “it would be best to halt this plan before it is too late and to rather extract the revenues required to pay for the freeway upgrade by way of the efficient general tax and fuel levies.

375 words
Issued by Wayne Duvenage





OUTA welcomes the announcement on Monday by the Competition Commission, which fined 15 construction groups a collective total of R1.46bn to settle a multiyear investigation of bid rigging. It is, however, noted that the settlement at 5% of the estimated R30bn in project value, falls well short of the 10% of turnover guideline without adjusting for inflation since around 2009.

Reports further indicate that the collusive behavior impacted the construction of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP), which SANRAL now plans to Toll in order to fund these costly upgrades. OUTA calls upon the Competition Commission to release details of the extent of the collusion on the GFIP project and further calls for part of the R1,46bn fine to be allocated to SANRAL’s repayment of GFIP. The public should not have to carry the implications of past collusive pricing, into the future.

OUTA has also noted the lack of response, to date, from SANRAL who we would have expected to be outraged by the collusive behaviour related to the GFIP projects. One wonders how SANRAL, who are supposed to be experts at road construction pricing, allowed such collusive behavior to go unnoticed or unchallenged at the time of the GFIP tender process. This decision comes only a few weeks after we learnt of the forecasted annual R670m earnings by Kapsch Trafficom for its share of the Gauteng eToll collection services, which equates to as high as 40% of the estimated eToll collection costs to society.

OUTA wishes to remind SANRAL and its spokesperson Mr Vusi Mona that the eToll decision by the Con Court in September 2012 overturned only the interdict against SANRAL to launch eTolling, which is a completely separate legal matter to the merits of the decision to proceed with eTolling, which will be tested at the Supreme Court of Appeal in September this year. Mr Mona, in his recent comments, appears to not recognise the critical difference nor, for that matter, cannot explain why SANRAL has delayed their eToll launch for over nine months since the September 2012 Con Court case, despite SANRAL’s court testimony which clearly indicated their need and intention to start tolling within two weeks of the interdict being set aside. The regulatory framework is part of the entire process and is still fraught with challenges, some two years after SANRAL’s initial eToll launch dates in 2011.

Indeed, Mr Mona should also take note of the fact that SANRAL had lacked transparency in its dealing with regard to GFIP contract documents presented to COSATU in 2011, which had many pages blanked out. In a more recent court interdict in the Western Cape, SANRAL was stopped in its tracks from forging ahead with tolling plans in that region, due to amongst other things, a lack of transparency on costs and information required for public engagement.

Furthermore, SANRAL has lost in other legal matters before various courts around the country, including the outcome of the HMKL case last year (which resulted in the moving of the Centurion gantry due to the lack of legal compliance to the Environmental Impact Assessment process) and in the KZN South Coast toll concession tender case. These incidents are not smoke nor allegation but fact.

Wayne Duvenage, the Chairperson of OUTA commented that he was “sad to see how the integrity of a once respectable state owned entity such as SANRAL has been tarnished over the past few years, as a result of the GFIP process which has been characterised by high costs, a lack of transparency and irrational decision making. We are hopeful that OUTA’s Supreme Court of Appeal hearing in three month’s time, will finally demonstrate the shocking extent of this matter which has been nothing short of a sheer lack of respect for the citizens of this country.”

640 Words.
Issued by Wayne Duvenage. Chairperson OUTA

AARTO: Dramatic redesign or drop?

(Download SAVRALA’a AARTO Amendment Bill submission to Department of Transport)

The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO) was promulgated in 1998 and, at its core, when read with the National Road Traffic Offences Act was intended to;

a) decriminalise road traffic infringements by managing them administratively thereby giving much needed capacity to the court system and standardising infringements nationally

b) create a system of demerit points which should change driver behaviour and reduce the carnage on the country’s roads Fifteen years and many announcements from various Ministers of Transport and Government officials later, we remain in a situation where AARTO is only partially implemented in Tshwane and Johannesburg.

Everywhere else around the country the Criminal Procedures Act (CPA) applies which, for example, sees different jurisdictions applying different fine amounts for the same offence and then processing the offence through their local courts.

As can be expected, one of the key requirements for any prosecutorial process to be successful is the correct identification of the driver who committed the infringement. Before traffic enforcement by camera became as popular as it is with the authorities, many road users contravening the laws of the road were identified by a patrolling law enforcement officer who proceeded to pull over the driver, check for valid identification, advise the driver of the relevant law that was broken and then proceed to write up a fine.

Unfortunately, the new modern version of traffic enforcement largely relies on police officers sitting with their camera equipment concealed behind bridge columns or bushes and then downloading pictures of the vehicle registrations to a computer system. Before any camera infringement can then be processed, the registration must be matched against the vehicle owner details via Enatis.

Although the percentage may vary, it is generally accepted Enatis is just 30% accurate. Consequently, a huge number of traffic infringements are sent out to the incorrect drivers and invariably return back to the authorities in a return post bag which becomes a costly and wasteful exercise. Despite the various methods employed by some of the authorities to get around this problem, the lack of accurate and updated vehicle owner details on Enatis remains a major stumbling block for both the authorities, SAVRALA members and general vehicle owners.

The problem of driver identification, is generally less of a problem for leasing companies than car rental operators, however, they share an administrative burden when trying to process traffic fines. Typically, a leased vehicle will be allocated to an individual for a number of years so any traffic infringements received by the leasing company, all things being equal, can be reasonably assumed to be for that individual.

Leased vehicles in a pool would require the customer leasing the vehicles to have a system to track which of their employee’s drove which vehicle where and when. This becomes more complicated in a car rental environment where customers (first time and frequent renters) want to simply pick up their reserved vehicle without delays in administration. The car rental company has a very short window of opportunity to check the authenticity of the customer having produced only their drivers licence and credit card.

Under AARTO, the driver’s details are required for the fine to be redirected. In order for the authorities to redirect the fine to the correct person, the necessary AARTO document (to be completed
in full), requires a long list of details even including the renters fax number. Overseas renters, who do not have a South Africa ID number, cause further complications. As car rental companies will very often only have minimal and often only local contact details for the renter, this leaves a lot of information gaps in the AARTO documents required for submission.

The process of now trying to resolve outstanding traffic fines has become both an expensive and time consuming exercise for all involved. The administration designed in 1998 is largely irrelevant for today and this, at last, has been recognised by the authorities in the recent publication for comment of the AARTO Amendment Bill. While the Bill tries to offer an electronic solution to some of the administrative bottlenecks, it just raises further problems. It is also of concern the proposed wording begins to try and shift the responsibility for an outstanding payment to the vehicle owner rather than the driver of the vehicle at that time. SAVRALA will oppose this, as the aforementioned simply moves the burden of
unpaid traffic fines to the car rental and leasing companies.

While Government continues to speak about Road Safety in terms of the Decade of Action, we have yet to see the road carnage tide turn and the numbers ebb back from the annual loss of more than 14 000 lives costing the economy in excess of R300-billion.

AARTO started out with noble intentions and was modelled on successes in several developed countries, however, after so many years of controversy and lack of national adoption, it may well now be the time to either dramatically redesign it to simply focus on those key factors that cause road fatalities (eg drunk driving, excessive high speeds, road worthiness, seat belts etc) or drop it completely and go back to the drawing board.

(Download SAVRALA’a AARTO Amendment Bill submission to Department of Transport)

OUTA Legal Case overview and Thanks

29 Nov 2012


Wednesday 28 November hopefully marked the end of a long and much tougher challenge than we initially envisaged, after setting out in March to put a legal halt to the eTolling of Gauteng’s Freeways
I say so feeling confident that we have put up an excellent challenge in court against SANRAL, Treasury and the Department of Transport’s respective legal teams this week. While there were many aspects about the eToll matter that are very wrong and are included in our legal challenge (being the high costs, inefficiency, lack of alternative transport and routes, enforcement, compliance, environmental matters and unworkability etc), our legal team felt it prudent to focus our energy in the review on the illegal nature of SANRAL’s shockingly poor public engagement process. Our arguments went deep into interpretation of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), combined with the Constitution and how Section 27 of the Sanral Act needed to be taken in the context of these laws.
Our case has exposed how SANRAL largely ignored their legal duties to conduct full and proper public consultations on their plan to toll the GFIP, largely under the guise of a ticking ‘Soccer World Cup’ clock. The simple matter is, unless the authorities conduct themselves properly in the ‘public engagement space’, they run the risk of a backlash from citizens, which is precisely why these laws exist, the ignorance of which is being currently expressed by the public outrage and threats of civil disobedience. We have deemed SANRAL’s conduct as sufficiently unlawful and as such, their eToll plans need to be set aside and the process to be properly and legally re-engaged.
Over the past few months, when studying eToll project successes and failures around the world, we find a high correlation with society’s acceptance or rejection of these schemes being based on confidence and trust obtained through excellent public engagement on matters pertaining to reasonability of tariffs, alternative transport options, alternative routes, efficiency and good communication. Without these elements in place to bring society on board, tolling has (and will continue to) fail around the world, even in more disciplined first world environments. Every one of these elements was missing in the plan to toll the GFIP and even if the legal case rules in SANRAL’s favour, the current eTolling plan for Gauteng will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to implement. The truth be told, SANRAL is still unable implement eTolls – some 19 months after the first planned launch date of April 2011, despite their statement in the Constitutional Court in September 2012 that they will launch within two weeks of the interdict being set aside. There is a saying: “Laws are only as good as they are implementable and governable.” In this matter, both implementation and governance will be hurdles too high to jump. We sincerely trust the authorities will be able to acknowledge this sooner rather than later, whatever the legal outcome.
Win or lose in court, I’d like to acknowledge the dedication and tireless work of Marc Corcoran and Adrian d’Oliviera (Jnr Counsel) in getting us to where we are today. Pieter Conradie, Rebecca Thompson, Paul Pauwen, Alistair Franklin, Alfred Cockrel, Kelvin Buchannan and the skilful input of Adv Mike Maritz in the review hearings were all naturally very important and integral to the journey. It would be remiss of me not to also thank the members of SAVRALA, who provided the necessary and significant funding to get the case started, along with the RMI, QASA, SANCU, SATSA and AA, all of whom added immense weight to this cause, in conjunction with over 2300 individuals, families, small businesses and a few larger organisations who contributed to the funding of OUTA’s legal costs – a matter which is still not complete. We plead that business and the public continue to contribute to our legal costs at
We will know the outcome in a few weeks and intend deal therewith and resultant decisions / actions by the respondents, at that time. What is however known, is that this challenge was sincere and meaningfully undertaken to protect our rights as citizens of South Africa.

Wayne Duvenage
OUTA Chairperson

OUTA urges public participation at E-Toll Tarriffs sessions

The Department of Transport and SANRAL will be holding three public engagement sessions this week to at which they will be presenting on the e-Toll Exemptions and Tariff regulations and where the public are able to also hand in written submissions and raise questions / concerns.

OUTA urges the public to attend these Public information sessions on the e-Toll regulations at one of the following venues listed below. These opportunities for society engagement should not be overlooked or ignored and we encourage an expression of views to the authorities on the excessive rates and processes related to e-Tolls.

Tue 13 November 2012 Wed 14 November 2012 Thu 15 November 2012
The Premier Hotel
73 Gladiator Street
Kempton Park
Meiring Naude Road
The Focus Rooms
The Core, 1st Floor South
Cnr. Kikuyu & Leeuwkop Str

Issued by Wayne Duvenage
OUTA Chairperson