E-tolling interim order pushed aside

j4ck455

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
7,211
This was because the high court had not considered the separation of powers between the court and the executive.

I don't think anyone will believe that cover story.

This ruling effectively confirms what we all knew was going to happen after the despotic Zuma appointed his pet court jester Moegoe Moegoe to subvert The Constitutional Court, the autocratic cANCer dictatorship can clearly change The Constitution whenever it wants.

If there is an appeal to this ruling, I think the involvement of Moegoe Moegoe and other cANCer supporters should be investigated.
 
Last edited:

burn

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,334
I don't think anyone will believe that cover story.

This ruling effectively confirms what we all knew was going to happen after the despotic Zuma appointed his pet court jester Moegoe Moegoe to subvert The Constitutional Court, the autocratic cANCer dictatorship can clearly change The Constitution whenever it wants.

If there is an appeal to this ruling, I think the involvement of Moegoe Moegoe and other cANCer supporters should be investigated.

A bit of a harsh reaction considering the full judgment has not been released. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt until then.

There will be no appeal. You can't go higher than the Con Court.
 

j4ck455

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
7,211
A bit of a harsh reaction considering the full judgment has not been released. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt until then.

There will be no appeal. You can't go higher than the Con Court.

There was mention of 'no corruption' in this separation of powers ruling, one of the reasons for needing a judicial review of etrolling is that SANRAL has refused to make all of the contracts available which it has signed with third parties, this immediately suggests that SANRAL is trying to hide something which is most likely corruption and nepotism.

If there is any hint of corruption it would surely open the way for an appeal (ConCourt must have its own appeal process in cases where a ConCourt ruling was made without considering all the facts or facts were not previously available).
 

burn

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,334
There was mention of 'no corruption' in this separation of powers ruling, one of the reasons for needing a judicial review of etrolling is that SANRAL has refused to make all of the contracts available which it has signed with third parties, this immediately suggests that SANRAL is trying to hide something which is most likely corruption and nepotism.

If there is any hint of corruption it would surely open the way for an appeal (ConCourt must have its own appeal process in cases where a ConCourt ruling was made without considering all the facts or facts were not previously available).

I think you are getting confused. The question in this case was whether the High Court acted beyond its power in ordering the interim interdict and the requirements needed for such an order. All you mention above is the subject of a pending High Court case and was not in issue in this judgment.

And no, there is no review process in the Con Court.

http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZACC/2012/18.html
 
Last edited:

j4ck455

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
7,211
I think you are getting confused. The question in this case was whether the High Court acted beyond its power in ordering the interim interdict and the requirements needed for such an order. All you mention above is the subject of a pending High Court case and was not in issue in this judgment.

And no, there is no review process in the Con Court.

http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZACC/2012/18.html

I am not confused, I refer to the following statement made as part of reading out the ConCourt ruling:
Reading the judgment, Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke said:

“What is more, absent any proof of unlawfulness or fraud or [highlight]corruption[/highlight], the power and the prerogative to formulate and implement policy on how to finance public projects reside in the exclusive domain of the National Executive, subject to budgetary appropriations by Parliament,” he continued.

My point is that SANRAL's refusal to present the Gauteng North High court with all of the etrolling contracts, set off alarm bells and was definitely a huge factor in Judge Bill Prinsloo's decision to grant the injunction against etrolling.

The ConCourt seems to have deliberately ignored those same alarm bells and instead ruled that there is absolutely zero evidence of corruption where SANRAL's etrolling scheme and government in general is concerned. This ruling goes against the common sense principle of 'rising smoke usually indicates fire'.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,913
The ConCourt seems to have deliberately ignored those same alarm bells and instead ruled that there is absolutely zero evidence of corruption where SANRAL's etrolling scheme and government in general is concerned. This ruling goes against the common sense principle of 'rising smoke usually indicates fire'.

Not correct. He who alleges must provide proof. The correct action, in order for the judiciary to intervene in the executive's domain, is to prove fraud or corruption. This means that they would need evidence , which means an application to SANRAL under PAIA for the relevant documents. Why this has not been done, I don't know.

OUTA's strategy on the interdict was rushed and headstrong, but I still hope they win under the review.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
78,444
The application was made. Documents were handed over with large portions blacked out.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,913
Ah then I don't know. Apply to have the blacked out portions un-reducted. The point is "smoke" is not enough.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
78,444
What about the wisdom and fairness of a collection mechanism costing more than the (already overpriced) roads?
Doesn't that hold any weight at all?

We need to be protected from tyranny.
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
78,444
Separation of powers does not mean the government is above the law. The constitution is the overarching authority in the land. The citizenry relies on the constitution to protect us from the government.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
104,620
Separation of powers does not mean the government is above the law. The constitution is the overarching authority in the land. The citizenry relies on the constitution to protect us from the government.

Not this idiot again... he makes out like he is some kind of Constitutional Expert, but ignores the most basic of principles. Look at this paragraph...

First, the money they had already paid for e-tolling could always be claimed back in the court eventually set aside the imposition of e-tolling. Second, the government had decided that motorists would have to pay for the highway upgrade, whether through e-tolling or another mechanism. Motorists will have to bear the financial burden of the road upgrades, which means that “the harm, if any, to be borne by motorists would be relative but never absent”.

What he ignores is that more than half of the funds collected will go towards servicing the debt itself (more like 80%).
That is an EXTREMELY inefficient collection mechanism and when we are talking about a public debt on the order of more than R20 Billion rand is a very exceptional circumstance.

What this idiot is basically saying is that the fact that motorists will be paying for the same piece of road over and over again up to as many as five times is irrelevant (never mind the fact that we have already been paying for the road maintenance for the last few decades)!
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,913
Separation of powers does not mean the government is above the law. The constitution is the overarching authority in the land. The citizenry relies on the constitution to protect us from the government.

Naturally, but it means that the instances that the judiciary can interfere in government decisions (even badly made ones) is very limited (as the CC said, no proof of fraud or corruption). Testing the idiocy of a collection mechanism is not a matter for a court (it seems), but rather through normal executive, administrative places e.g. hearings etc.
 
Top