Fin24

Reasons for e-toll halt vague - lawyer

2012-08-15 14:25

Johannesburg - Reasons given by the High Court in Pretoria for granting an interim interdict against e-tolling were vague and unclear, the Constitutional Court heard on Wednesday.

National Treasury lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett said High Court Judge Bill Prinsloo did not provide adequate reasons for his decision to grant the interdict.

"With respect, what he does... is tick the individual interdict boxes, and to say each time that it (the reason) is there."

He said it was difficult for the parties to determine how he had come to his conclusions.

"It is the beginning of vagueness."

The interdict by the High Court in Pretoria, brought by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa), was granted on April 28.

It instructed that a full review needed to be carried out before electronic tolling of Gauteng's highways could be put into effect.

The SA National Roads Agency Ltd (Sanral) and National Treasury are appealing against the court order.

Gauntlett argued on Wednesday there was a lack of concern about the financial implications of the interdict in Outa's founding affidavit. He said it predicted harm, and that the harm would fall solely on Sanral, but nothing was further analysed.

"It leaves out, spectacularly, public interest."

Gauntlett said it was wholly unrealistic to grant an interdict against the project when it was ready to begin.

"I know it's all been built. What this fight about is how it is (to be) paid (for)."

He likened this to having built a stadium and reviewing it based merely on how its turnstiles functioned.

Gauntlett said the interdict, by acknowledging that the government had decided to take-on Sanral's debts, would unfairly affect the entire country's economy.

"Government ends up robbing Peter to pay Paul. Where Paul are road users who have claimed this wonderful world-class transport facility, and Peter are the people in other provinces."

Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke asked why, if the government was so opposed to the interdict, would it agree to so many postponements.

Gauntlett said one of the four postponements was for technical reasons, while the others were about public concerns.

He said the court, through acknowledging the idea of the separation of powers, should grant the appeal.

"Therefore we ask for the application to be allowed and for the appeal to be upheld," Gauntlett said, closing his argument.


*Follow Fin24 on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

 

Comments
  • Thebigguyjim - 2012-08-15 14:43

    Not half as vague as where all the tolls that will be collected will be spent and distributed (Stolen)in the form of collection fees, Bribes and kick backs to ANC contractors and connected politicians. Viva OUTA.

  • herman.heil - 2012-08-15 14:44

    "It leaves out, spectacularly, public interest." Gauntlett said one of the four postponements was for technical reasons, while the others were about public concerns. But, isn't this whole circus because of public outcry against e-tolling???? It is us, Peter and Paul who is saying no to this blatant robbery, let us be heard!!!

  • danny.archer.589 - 2012-08-15 14:53

    "He likened this to having built a stadium and reviewing it based merely on how its turnstiles functioned." HAHAHAHAHA!! Nice try! Bad analogy though. It should be likened to Cape Town Stadium. It's built, but the funding mechanism is under constant review. It should be demolished...JUST LIKE E-TOLL!

  • werner.nel.712 - 2012-08-15 14:54

    still not going to register or pay.....

  • paul.kershaw.18 - 2012-08-15 15:03

    I D I O T S. Paul is not going to pay either!

  • afrikeni - 2012-08-15 15:03

    And you call this the bright legal minds. The analogue of the stadium given shows how shallow this attorney is. YES, the turnstiles are insignificant in terms of costs but crucial to the stadium as they are the first entry point & line of defence. If turnstiles don't work properly, people will enter free (loss of revenue), some will bring weapons (danger to others) and overally, the stadium capacity will most likely be exceeded and stampedes & death will mostly occur. So every part of the process needs to be carefully considered. This attorney has never heard that you are as strong as your weakest point. NEXT!

      danny.archer.589 - 2012-08-15 15:17

      "And you call this the bright legal minds." They are there defending the indefensible and they know it. They're just there for a pay day. Can't wait for tomorrow!

  • clinton.bowden1 - 2012-08-15 15:06

    Anymore vague than the reasoning and decision made by goverment to build the tolls in the firt place? Goverment was vague to begin with, elusive when it came to asking questions and then just a schoolyard bully that attempted to have their way. Goverment also failed to provide a viable alternative to the public. In short all they have done has looked for a way to squeeze more money out of it's citizens. Judges decisions were not vague. Like any judge if the evidence is not conclusive then no decisive decision can be made. The judge did his job, pity the goverment can really say they did the same. The judge cannot be accused of vagueness.

  • rupert.culwick - 2012-08-15 15:08

    In the words of the Beatles song we must all ''stand together''. Enough civil refusal to pay will cripple the system.

  • danny.archer.589 - 2012-08-15 15:08

    "Government ends up robbing Peter to pay Paul. Where Paul are road users who have claimed this wonderful world-class transport facility, and Peter are the people in other provinces." I think you mean "Government ends up robbing Peter INSTEAD OF Paul."

      alan.gernet - 2012-08-15 15:15

      nah - they want to rob Peter AND Paul!

  • paul.kershaw.18 - 2012-08-15 15:11

    "Government robs Peter to pay Paul"? Even their lawyer is admitting to the cANCer led government's thievery! Dogs!

  • spookhuis - 2012-08-15 15:16

    FOOTBALL STADIUMS..... we the tax payers said no....you the government said no problem comrade Seth the fools will pay. Just like the e-tolls.

  • warwick.railton.7 - 2012-08-15 15:19

    This Peter says: up yer bum sanral, I will not pay etollie.

      alan.gernet - 2012-08-15 15:24

      yeah - up yer P...Paul Scamall

  • UNITY - 2012-08-15 15:26

    Its a shame to have a lawyer selling his soul for this government. His arguments have no substanance, especially why they allowed so many postponements..its because they themselves were vague and ill prepared! Viva citizens of this country ! Viva Outa !We have the final say, government works for us! Not the other way around! It feels like they feel they own this country!

  • chad.d.tugwell - 2012-08-15 15:29

    I'm not paying, do what they must, but this is a democracy, and I WILL NOT PAY!!

  • melusi.myaluza - 2012-08-15 16:12

    as if anybody cares,i still ain't buying no damn tag

  • nosiphom.mazibuko - 2012-08-15 17:28

    "Government ends up robbing Peter to pay Paul. Where Paul are road users who have claimed this wonderful world-class transport facility, and Peter are the people in other provinces." I suggest we should stop subsidising hospitals in the EC. Remove all taxes and we all have a user pays principle for all Public services. We Gauten Residents keep on paying for inefficiency in the Eastern Cape. This is a tupsid argument people. In SA we have cross subsidisation, and if that were not the case the eastern Cape and Limpopo would be fourth world countries.

  • njdejager - 2012-08-15 22:11

    Peter and Paul is getting robbed to pay govnt and SANRAL. And Peter and Paul also have to pay for these clowns to try and convince the court that Peter and Paul must still pay more to SIT in world class traffic jams on our world class N1, N3 parking lots. Great thanks SANRAL NOT!!

  • pages:
  • 1