[ad_1]
By Karen Singh 
7h ago
Durban – A civil rights group and the Automobile Association (AA) have raised concerns about some of the draft regulations for the Administrative Resolution of Traffic Crimes Act (Aarto).
The regulations were published earlier this month by Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula and are available for public comment until December 1.
Concerns were raised regarding an R100 infringement tax and the use of electronic service options that could include WhatsApp, email or SMS.
Business and corporate law candidate Suhail Ebrahim, who is from Shepstone & Wylie, said that if the process of sending traffic violation notices was done through an electronic service, the system could be exposed to abuse.
He said violators may not always provide correct information, which could void the purpose of the electronic service.
However, Ebrahim warned that withholding correct information could be illegal.
He said regulations still allowed traditional forms of service, such as postal mail and personal service, in cases where document reservation or infringement notifications were required.
The Aarto Law provided forms called Aarto 01 and Aarto 02, which were the infringement notices that had to be delivered by electronic means, he said.
Ebrahim said Regulation 29 provided for personal service to be achieved on the roadside, when any document like Aarto 01 and Aarto02 was delivered to a person who committed an infraction.
“The offender must enter their personal data, as well as the means through which the electronic service can be carried out, such as their email address and cell phone number, that the details that the offender must confirm are correct,” he said. .
The Undoing Tax Abuse Organization (Outa) said it did not agree with notices being delivered by means other than certified mail.
“Outa is not opposed to the use of other advanced technological means in general, but given the serious consequences that may follow an alleged offender, such service is not adequate.”
Meanwhile, AA spokesman Layton Beard said the R100 violation penalty tax, which will be paid in addition to a fine, amounts to a “stealth tax.”
“We think it is unfair and we reject it outright,” he said.
The AA said the tax was “similar to someone paying a fee to file their tax returns.”
“Ultimately, it is an unfair surcharge for a function that is already paid for through traffic ticket revenue,” AA said.
It also said it was unclear whether the fee would be refunded to the offender if the violation was successfully challenged.
“The quiet implementation of a stealth tax of billions of rand is a scandalous addition to the regulations.
“We urge the Department of Transportation to eliminate it, it is neither fair nor necessary and in our opinion it is an example of the Traffic Infractions Agency, which Aarto administers, invading the fiscal territory of the National Treasury,” said the AA.
He said that while there were provisions in the draft regulation that were strong, such as those related to emergency lane driving and license misuse, there were many things that required review and rework.
Outa said the organization believes that the R100 fee does not constitute a tax, but is described as an administrative cost.
“The infringement penalty rate as mentioned in the law is just one of the many problems Outa has with the Aarto laws.
“Outa agrees that it is an administrative expense and not a tax, for the simple reason that the imposition of the penalty for infraction will go directly to the authority, the Traffic Infractions Agency when it is charged, unlike of the tax that goes directly to the Treasury ”.
The organization said it did not agree that the Aarto Law and the Aarto Amendment Law were the most effective way to curb road deaths and promote road safety.
The organization has launched an appeal in the Constitutional Court against the facts, requesting that it declare them unconstitutional.
The Mercury
[ad_2]
