Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill; finalisation

This premium content has been made freely available


25 September 2002
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report


25 September 2002

Chairperson: Mr J Cronin (ANC)

Documents Handed Out:
Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill [B42-2002]
Memorandum by Legal Services, Department of Transport on the AARTO Bill (Appendix 1)

The Committee formally considered the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill. Members' concerns ranged from payment of traffic offences and mode of notification with regard to the appointment of members to Agency Board. The Department of Transport submitted their corrections to various clauses of the Amendment Bill after seeking legal advice. The Committee adopted the amendments to the Bill.

All Members agreed that discussions on the hearings in to the National Land Transport Transition Act be delayed until the beginning of the next term of Parliament. It was agreed that the Palmer Group is to be requested to draft a summary of processes that unfolded during the public hearings on the NLTTA. The Committee would then deliberate on the summary compiled by the Palmer Group.

The Deputy Manager of Legal Services of the Department, Adv S Dube, outlined the corrections proposed to the Amendment Bill in question. For details of the corrections to amendments, please see Appendix 1.

Mr Farrow (DP) raised concern over Clause 19(B) with regard to payment by a cheque that is dishonoured. Would payment of traffic offences by cheques no longer be allowed?

Mr Van Tonder (Department) replied that an advanced technology system of payment has been developed to enhance the payment of traffic fines. But the presence of such technology does not render payment by cheques impossible. In some instances, traffic offenders would be able to pay their fines with the use of cellular technology.

The Chairperson, Mr Jeremy Cronin (ANC) added that the aim of the system was to facilitate the payment and collection of traffic fines. Further, it is meant to close loopholes on people who might want to manipulate the system of payment.

Mr Slabbert (IFP) asked if payment of traffic fines will attract any interest as the charging of interest has been omitted in the amended Bill. He also wanted to know who will determine the period of installments and whether the powers of prosecutors were being taken away by the representations officer.

Mr Van Tonder replied that payment of traffic fines would be interest-free. But the offender cannot decide on the payment of interest on installments, as the Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board would determine this. Furthermore, there can never be an admission of guilt fine issued by the prosecutor. The offender can simply approach the court for judgement on his infringement. This means that the powers of prosecutors to award reductions when requested by the offender are taken away.

Mr Niemann (NNP) suggested that the notice be given in the newspapers as well and not only in the Government Gazette.

The Chair responded that he is reluctant to accept the suggestion as certain constituencies have a vested interest in the sector. Therefore the notice by means of government gazette was sufficient. Mr Ainslie (ANC) agreed with the view of the chair and added that this issue could be highly contentious and notice in mass media must be avoided.

The Chairperson read of the motion of desirability and the Bill was agreed to.

The meeting was adjourned until further notice.

Appendix 1:

To: Adv Mbangeni

Office of the Chief State Law Advisor

From: Sindiswa Dube

Legal Services, National Department of Transport

Date: 23 September 2002

Subject: AARTO Amendment Bill, 2002


After the briefing of the Portfolio Committee on Transport last week, the members raised the following issues. We have looked at the proposals internally and we require assistance in the proper formulation of the Clauses.


A definition of 'Representations officer' is proposed.

'Representations officer' means an official to whom representations by members of the public are made in relation to infringements committed.

Clause 2 (b)

To reward law-abiding behaviour by reducing demerit points where they have been incurred if infringements or offences are not committed over specified periods.

Clause 4 (1) (a)

[Three] five persons [who are not employed by the State,] appointed by the Minister, [on account] who by virtue of their [commercial] relevant experience and technical expertise are---

Clause 11 (a)

Where an infringer exercises one of the options envisaged in sections 17 (1) (f), 18 (7) (b) or 19 (2),

Clause 18

There were a few inadvertent omissions, which render the Clause nonsensical. To clean it up, we suggest the following additions;

On line 24, page 8, insert 'that' after time, insert 'has' after court.

On line 25, page 8, delete 'court' and delete 'had' and insert has.

Kindly come back to us before Wednesday, 25 September 2002.

Thank You



No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: