Special courts for e-toll non-payers discussed

Great MORE tax payers money wasted on a stupid wasteful inefficient system thats being forced on us by some corrupt ANC members hellbent on cashing in the cheque that was promised to them by some foreign company.

Way to go ANC you are really making more enemies as you go along,you are turning previous ANC voters away from you.This has to stop now.
 
There really seems to be an unlimited budget allocation to this E-Tolls project.
 
Garyvdh said:
SANRAL is a private company.
How many other private companies do you know of that have access to their own special courts, paid for by the Government?
Click to expand...

No, SANRAL is a State owned enterprise entirely owned by the State, subject to the PFMA, formed by an act of parliament.

The specific court would be targeting a specific offence, created in terms of e-tolling legislation.

Look, I'm not saying I'm for this. I'm just saying that this is one particular line of argument that will lose, and it would be better to focus on other, more critical, aspects of e-tolls. I for one, if I was OUTA, would be arguing that the collecting of outstanding debt through the CPA is unconstitutional. It is clear as day unconstitutional. Debtors' jails were outlawed ages ago.
 
IzZzy said:
No, SANRAL is a State owned enterprise entirely owned by the State, subject to the PFMA, formed by an act of parliament.

The specific court would be targeting a specific offence, created in terms of e-tolling legislation.

Look, I'm not saying I'm for this. I'm just saying that this is one particular line of argument that will lose, and it would be better to focus on other, more critical, aspects of e-tolls. I for one, if I was OUTA, would be arguing that the collecting of outstanding debt through the CPA is unconstitutional. It is clear as day unconstitutional. Debtors' jails were outlawed ages ago.
Click to expand...

The courts don't care who owns the company, they just know that SANRAL is a private company. It may only have on shareholder, but like any other juristic person in SA, it is simply a private company. Call it the Government's fault for structuting it that way, but it remains a private company with shareholders. And private companies with shareholders should not enjoy unfair protection in terms of the law in SA.

THAT is unconstitutional.

About SANRAL

The South African National Roads Agency Limited, generally known as SANRAL, is an independent, statutory company registered in terms of the Companies Act. The South African government, represented by the Minister of Transport, is the sole shareholder and owner of SANRAL.
Click to expand...
http://www.nra.co.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=6
 
Garyvdh said:
The courts don't care who owns the company, they just know that SANRAL is a private company. It may only have on shareholder, but like any other juristic person in SA, it is simply a private company. Call it the Government's fault for structuting it that way, but it remains a private company with shareholders. And private companies with shareholders should not enjoy unfair protection in terms of the law in SA.

THAT is unconstitutional.


http://www.nra.co.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=6
Click to expand...

Anyone can request the creation of specific courts. It would be the Department of Justice who does the actual creation and maintenance, and it would be a statutory court (not a High Court), just like a Magistrate's Court.

Again, you are confusing a private company and a State owned company - they are not the same thing. SANRAL's website says they are registered under the Companies Act but this does not make them a private company.

3 Incorporation of The South African National Roads Agency Limited

(1) The Minister must take all the steps that are necessary for the formation and incorporation 1 of that agency as a public company with a share capital within the meaning of the Companies Act, subject to section 2, this section and section 4.

(2) Despite the provisions of the Companies Act, the State will be the only member and shareholder of that company upon its incorporation and at any time thereafter.

(3) Despite the provisions of the Companies Act-

(a) the Minister, who represents the State, will sign the memorandum of association, articles of association and all other documents necessary in connection with the formation and incorporation of the company;

(b) the Registrar of Companies must register the memorandum of association and articles of association as signed by the Minister, and incorporate the company as a public company under the name 'The South African National Roads Agency Limited', with the State as its only member and shareholder, and issue to the company a certificate to commence business with effect from the date of the company's incorporation.

(4) (a) The State's rights as member and shareholder of the Agency are to be exercised by the Minister.

(b) The relationship between the Agency and the Minister representing the State as the only member and shareholder, will be as defined in an agreement entered into by the Agency and the Minister for that purpose, subject to this Act.
Click to expand...

It is not unconstitutional for SANRAL to request the Department of Justice to create a specific court. It would be unconstitutional for SANRAL to create the specific court.
 
Yes, unfortunately, there are nothing wrong or unconstitutional about setting up a special court for any specific industry. One example is where the banking industry and Business Against Crime came together and requested specific courts to be established to deal with fraud related matters. This lead to the establishment of the Commercial Crimes Courts around the country. It also lead to the SAPS to establish the Commercial Crimes Unit (now partially the Hawks) to investigate the matters.

So, I am 100% sure that SANRAL will get their courts. I am also sure that government will instruct the SAPS to launch specific investigation units, and appoint more investigators.

This is bad new for the public, but I saw this coming. The main purpose of this court will be to deal with civil disobedience and ensure toll fees are collected. I foresee huge penalties for offenders and long term imprisonment sentences....
 
Nevertheless, the amount of legal problems that this is going to face is insurmountable.
I'm bookmarking this thread, as an "I told you so" moment.
 
Dlamaqhinga said:
This will never happen, these are just scare tactics
Click to expand...

Back in 2000, when the banks came together and said they wanted their own courts where matters related to bigger fraud incidents can be heard we also thought it would never happen, but in less than a year the courts a go. A year or so later they were n function.
 
Murder, rape, home invasions, xenophobia, etc... No special courts required but heaven forbid you don't pay your e-toll!
 
if the court has criminal jurisdiction problems kick in:
a person has a right to a criminal trial before an ordinary court
this is different to the right to having a dispute resolved by an impartial and fair tribunal

There are quite a few issues which kick in about institutional and individual autonomy of presiding officers in ordinary courts and if SANRAL is able to pick magistrates with SANRAL deemed specialized knowledge this approach simply won't fly.

The "specialized" courts that have dealt with criminal matters have always been extensions of an existing ordinary court structure in the magistrates court system and are probably more properly referred to as dedicated courts- the commercial crimes court (a roll within the regional division), sexual offences court (a roll within the regional division), world cup courts (a roll within the district division), KZN mobile traffic courts (a roll within the district division) etc ...
The courts have been dedicated more than specialized and the sexual offences courts were dismantled and restarted on this "specialized" problem and a lot of political bantering about.

I suspect SANRAL wants to create a specialized court to make its life easier but it will have to create dedicated traffic courts for each affected magisterial district, or suddenly make etolling a regional court matter for the region of Gauteng, and they'll have to hop around the Magistrates' Courts Act to make it work.

If they do declare etoll matters a regional court matter a collateral challenge is worth launching
If they do go the district mess route they will be inviting all sorts of problems

If they go the route of writing special legislation to create special courts to deal with a special statutory offence then the parameters of an "ordinary court"
 
They cannot prosecute real criminals now they want to spend time, money and effort to go after road users, this is ridiculous, this is incompetency at the highest level !
 
House said:
Back in 2000, when the banks came together and said they wanted their own courts where matters related to bigger fraud incidents can be heard we also thought it would never happen, but in less than a year the courts a go. A year or so later they were n function.
Click to expand...

Um there was a dedicated commercial crimes court at the Johannesburg magistrates court in 1978 (as far as I know it shut down in the 80s), and the current commercial crimes court (with Business Against Crime support) was opened in Pretoria in 1999 so I don't know where "back in 2000 the banks came together" comes from
 
House said:
Back in 2000, when the banks came together and said they wanted their own courts where matters related to bigger fraud incidents can be heard we also thought it would never happen, but in less than a year the courts a go. A year or so later they were n function.
Click to expand...

A year or so later? by then the backlog would be far too great for them to ever catch up.
 
I thought SANRAL was a private company. The "L" is for "Limited", isn't it? Now since when do private companies get to establish criminal courts to ensure that they can make ends meet? Maybe they should allow their contractors' contractor's contractors to establish special courts while they're at it, just to make sure it is entirely removed from the democratic and constitutional system.
 
Garyvdh said:
At this point you should probably realise that there is not a hope in hell of this happening and this is just more scare tactics from SANRAL to force people to go out and buy e-tags.
Click to expand...

This is my impression. They are deliberately scaring the public into buying their blasted plastic. They cannot sell it on merit or value, so they'll resort to the big stick approach.

I am not a sheep! Sorry for you, SANRAL! :D
 
Well, I can confirm that this is no scare tactic. This is going to happen. I just heard from an insider from the DOJ. The only obstacle in their way at this stage is the police and what role they will play (police is not keen to launch an investigative department dealing with this alone). But, currently, suggestions this far is that one court at every district courthouse will be used for these offences alone. Criminal proceedings will be similar to that of normal traffic fines. Will have to wait and see when this will start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X