Loading...
See More

Costs not enough to halt e-toll project

Aug 15 2012 15:32 Ahmed Areff and Maryke Vermaak

Related Articles

Reasons for e-toll halt vague - lawyer

DA applies to join e-toll case

Bill paves way for e-tolling

Sanral in dire straits without e-tolls

Business seeks meeting on e-tolls

RFA's e-toll intervention dismissed

 
Johannesburg - The costs of collection for e-tolling should not have been examined without considering the cost of the entire project, the Constitutional Court heard on Wednesday.

David Unterhalter SC, for the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral), told the court the interdict was granted based on the costs of a fraction of the project, and not the entire thing.

"You cannot take a general policy framework and allow it to [be] subordinated to a single economic ratio," he said.

"It is impossible to fairly assess the costs for collection against all the other costs of the project."

He said all the different funding models had been examined, and he quoted various reports that found e-tolling to be the most "desirable" one.

It was found that a fuel-levy would not be able to guarantee a steady flow of money into the project.

Unterhalter said the rate of non-compliance was not a proper reason for a review of the project.

"There will be some measure of deviance... [but] it is a criminal offence to use a road and not pay for it," he said.

"This is not a proper ground for attacking [the e-toll system]... Ask if this is a system that is lawful - and it is," he said.

Unterhalter said there were measures to manage deviance, and those who did not comply would face criminal sanctions. However, if people argued that they did not use the road, they could have a defence.

He said it was not necessary to prosecute every single person, but to merely make an example to encourage compliance.

He admitted that there were mistakes and faults, but the system was ready to begin for income to be generated.

He also questioned why the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) had not make its submissions in 2008 when the project was being finalised. He called Outa's case "palpably weak".

"We submit that the delay is a fundamental obstacle," he said.

Unterhalter argued that the high court had not shown restraint in its judgment, and that there was a "threshold" that needed to be crossed before a court could intervene on a policy matter.

Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke said courts needed to tread carefully on policy matters, but that nothing was beyond review since it was a constitutional right.

* Follow Fin24 on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.



outa  |  sanral  |  concourt  |  e-toll
NEXT ON FIN24X

 
 
 

Read Fin24’s Comments Policy

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
65 comments
Add your comment
Comment 0 characters remaining
 

Company Snapshot

We're talking about:

Small Business

Retailers of any shape and size can now unlock the power of mobile transacting.
 
 

Goalkeeper saves five penalties with his FACE!

Nothing, and we mean nothing, will keep goalkeeper Scott Stirling from stopping the ball!

 
 

Men24.com

Hottie of the day: Jesselyn
This invention makes farts smell like chocolate!
11 things men don’t know about their clothes
Hilarious mortal kombat elevator prank!

Money Clinic

Money Clinic
Do you have a question about your finances? We'll get an expert opinion.
Click here...
Loading...