So Many Questions

This week, the National Prosecuting Authority announced it would prosecute e-toll defaulters in Gauteng. Chris Barron asked Wayne Duvenage of the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance . . .

Is your boycott holding firm? Yes. Of course, since the threatening SMSes and threats of prosecution, there has been an increase in compliance.

How many users are paying? Between 35% and 40%.

That’s quite high, isn’t it, given the high level of popular opposition? No, it’s extremely low.

But climbing? When it launched in December 2013, they had about 15% of vehicles tagged. We thought they’d launch on about 35%. They obviously didn’t want to give us the numbers because the more people know that they’re in the majority, the less likely they are to pay. So we did our own count. Since then it’s gone up to between 35% and 40%.

Will the involvement of the NPA frighten more people into paying? I have no doubt it will frighten a handful. But the minister has just confirmed that the NPA is not going to prosecute. It can’t prosecute because the billing was a mess. The regulations say that Sanral [South African National Roads Agency] has to give you an invoice to pay, but you can only qualify for your discounted rate if you pay within seven days. So I’m a business donor. I want to qualify for the discounted rate and I want to pay in seven days, but I’m given the invoice in 40 or 50 days. So how, Mr Judge, do you expect me to comply with this process?

Is this why the minister extended the payment to 51 days? Yes, indeed. In recognition of the fact, I think, that the prosecutors said “You don’t have a case”. They’re not saying that openly, so they’ve given this reprieve.

Now that the payment period has been extended to 51 days, won’t it change things? Yes, it could, if you’re going to prosecute me in the future. What do you do with the last seven months’ worth of bills? Am I now exonerated from those? Do I win those cases? This is like trying to do an engine overhaul while the car is on the run. They’re trying to fix the problems we spoke to them about years ago. Now it’s such a nightmare for them that it’s unworkable.

Was it Sanral that called the NPA in, or the government? No, it was Sanral. We got word behind the scenes that Sanral was doing this. Why? Because it needed a successful prosecution to scare people into becoming more compliant.

That’s exactly what it would have done, surely? It most certainly would have, but to what extent? What we’re seeing is traction now in this defiance campaign. To this day, they have less than 40% compliance.

All it would take is a few successful prosecutions . . . That might push them to 50% or 60%.

What do they need to be sustainable? Well, when we took them to court in 2012, they had their compliance levels at 93%. That’s what they said they would get. According to our research, anything less than 80% is not sustainable. And, even then, international experience shows that the 80% get pissed off that 20% are not paying and that becomes 79%, 78%, and so on down. And this is in compliant societies where you can’t go and buy false number plates, where people stick to the law. In this environment, where people ride roughshod over the law, Sanral has a mountain to climb.

But you’re encouraging people to ignore the law? The court has said that the unlawfulness argument of e-tolling still has to be heard and it can only be heard in a criminal prosecution, which is what we’re waiting for now.

How seriously do you take the Gauteng premier’s promise to review e-tolls? Very seriously.

Is it his decision to make? It doesn’t matter, it’s his province.

Isn’t this a decision only the national government can take? It impacts Gauteng and the premier says that himself. His businesses will be pushed over — there are thousands of businesses that will close shop or retrench people if they have to pay e-tolls. He can’t have that.

Why does he need a review of the socioeconomic impact if he knows the impact? He’s got to go through the motions so that he’s got the ammunition. He wouldn’t have called for this review if he didn’t have the ear of national government — he’d be committing political suicide. He’s already said he has been in touch with the minister; this is why he is doing it. This is an opportunity for the national [government] to say to the premier, okay, you find a solution without us having egg on our faces with a local election coming.

Why does the Department of Transport seem to be going in the opposition direction? It is a bit confusing, which is why the minister is back-pedalling now. Sanral loves the talk of prosecution; they want to beat people into submission. But the minister now realises they have to make a statement on prosecution.