Government announces when Aarto demerit system will start
Clauses relating to the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto) demerit system will come into effect next year.
In a bulk gazette that contained 16 notices and proclamations, national government on Friday declared the commencement dates for certain sections of the Aarto Act and its subsequent amendment.
Implementation of the act will be done in phases, beginning in December for some municipalities.
The Aarto Act was passed in 1998, with the amendment containing the demerit system signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019.
Friday's gazette stated that the whole of the 1998 Act, with the exception of Section 29(g), will come into effect for 69 municipalities in 1 December.
Sections 17 to 20, section 23 and sections 29 to 35 of the 2019 amendment will also come into effect for those 69 municipalities on 1 December.
These municipalities include Johannesburg, Tshwane, Ekurhuleni, Mangaung, eThekwini and Cape Town.
Five months later, 144 municipalities receive the same stipulations on 1 April 2026. These include the Knysna, Drakenstein, Bela-Bela, Umvoti and 140 other local municipalities.
Section 24, which covers the demerit system, as well as sections 25 to 28 will come in effect for all municipalities from 1 September 2026.
Constitutional court case
The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) challenged the amendments and took the matter all the way to Constitutional Court.
The civil society group asserted that the amendments did not adequately deal with road traffic safety and that it hampered municipalities' ability to regulate their own affairs.
'Outa is of the opinion that the Aarto practical challenges are largely due to poor enforcement, a lack of administrative discipline when it comes to traffic infringement management, and a variety of problems in the management of vehicle and driver licencing,' the organisation stated at the time.
In July 2023, the court ruled against Outa, with then Chief Justice Raymond Zondo's judgment declaring that the amendments were constitutional.
Employee implications
Section 17 of the Act deals with the responsibilities of those who employ drivers.
'Aarto will make employers potentially face administrative and financial burdens for their employees' non-compliance where their driving falls within the employees' key duties and responsibilities,' Weber Wentzel advised previously.
The Act requires a company to appoint a proxy to represent company vehicles but the firm state that the proxy will not accumulate demerit points on the drivers' behalf.
'However, the proxy must ensure that the demerit points are allocated to the correct driver.'
'Should the proxy not do so, the employer will be liable to pay the fine at three times the value applicable to ordinary license holders,' WeberWentzel stated.
NOW READ: Aarto implementation could result in municipal traffic services 'shutting down'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Constitutional Court broadens interpretation of grazing rights under ESTA
The Constitutional Court ruled in favour of three brothers for their cattle to graze on the land belonging to a Trust. Image: File In deciding whether the right to graze cattle is afforded protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), the Constitutional Court has afforded a broader interpretation to the Act to include not only the right to reside on land, but also includes associated uses such as grazing and cultivation. This followed an appeal before the apex court by three brothers against a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment which denied them the right to graze cattle on the land they are staying on. The SCA judgment followed an earlier Land Claims Court judgment, which ruled in favour of the Mereki brothers. They are occupiers in terms of ESTA and reside on a farm owned by a trust in the North West Province. The trust bought the farm in 2003 and the mother of the brothers previously occupied the farm and used it to graze cattle, but she had meanwhile died. According to the trust, the late Mrs Mereki derived consent to graze five heads of cattle due to her employment at the farm. According to the trust, the right was personal to Mrs Mereki and was not transferrable to her children upon her death. However, after her death, her sons continued to live on the farm and continued to use the land to graze their nine heads of cattle. They had never sought or obtained express consent to keep cattle on the farm. The Moladora Trust earlier turned to the Land Claims Court (LCC) where they initially lost their legal bid for the brothers to remove their cattle. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The LCC ruled that terminating grazing rights without engagement may constitute an eviction under ESTA. On appeal, the SCA held that the applicants never obtained explicit consent to graze livestock and that Mrs Mereki's right to do so did not automatically transfer to them upon her death. The brothers argued before the Constitutional Court that ESTA occupiers who had consent to reside on a farm acquired an automatic right to keep and graze cattle. Judge Owen Rodgers, who wrote the consenting ConCourt judgment, said this argument had far-reaching implications for the rights of both owners and ESTA occupiers, and the LCC, as a specialist forum, was best placed to determine it at first instance, he said. The Court considered the historical background of dispossession and noted that the Constitution had been enacted with the intention of securing tenure and guaranteeing rights associated with the use of land for cultivation and grazing. It found that section 39(1) of the Constitution required that tenure under ESTA be given a broad and generous interpretation, rather than a narrow one. In interpreting ESTA, the court highlighted several provisions that referred not only to residence but also to the use of land. Particularly instructive were the definitions of 'evict' and 'terminate', along with other provisions envisaging that an occupier might have consent to cultivate crops or graze animals. The court held that the legislature had inconsistently included 'use of land' when referring to the right to 'reside on land'.
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
MK Party sends legal letter to Ramaphosa over two acting police ministers
Manyane Manyane | Published 1 hour ago The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) says South African taxpayers cannot afford to pay for two ministers in one portfolio as it accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of of violating his oath of office and failing to uphold the Constitution as required by that office. This was after Ramaphosa placed Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave and appointed Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting Police Minister. MKP leader, Jacob Zuma, has also given Ramaphosa until 10am on Friday, August 8, to resign. In a letter dated August 4, Zuma said he will take action against Ramaphosa if he fails to adhere to the demand. Ramaphosa's spokesperson Vincent Mangwenya said they were aware of the letter. 'The legal team will deal with that letter,' he said. The letter from KMNS attorneys, who act on behalf of Zuma, comes after the Constitutional Court last week dismissed the MKP's application to have a direct access to challenge Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence, appointing Cachalia as acting police minister and establishing a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the corruption allegations in the police and judiciary. 'Various reasons have been offered in respect of the decisions which were impugned by our client and uMkhonto weSizwe Party in the Constitutional Court which found that it lacked exclusive jurisdiction and/or has no basis to grant the requested direct access. "As a result, our client has or sought urgent advice on possibly taking the relevant dispute(s) to the High Court and/or any other appropriate forum. It is assumed that you stand by the reasons previously given for the decisions announced on 13 July 2025,' reads the letter. The party's spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela added: ' The judges did not want to take a decision knowing exactly that the MK Party has a strong case. By placing Mchunu on leave of absence and appointing Cachalia as an acting police minister, the country is having two ministers of police. Both ministers are acting.' Zuma, who said he is a concerned citizen, a voter and a former President, also demanded the date and time when Ramaphosa decided to place Mchunu on leave of absence and the decision to appoint Cachalia as acting police minister, as well as their current positions. 'When exactly (date and time) was your decision to place Minister Mchunu on leave of absence taken? When exactly (date and time ) was your decision to appoint Professor Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police (was) taken, communicated to him and to the public? 'What exactly is a 'Minister Designate', from a constitutional point of view? Immediately after the swearing-in ceremony (i.e. from around 9:30am on 1 August 2025), what was the exact correct description of Professor Cachalia? Was he a minister, acting minister or minister designate? What is the present, correct, full and official description of Mr. Senzo Mchunu? If the answers are the same, for how long is it envisaged that South Africa will have and pay for two Ministers of Police at the same time?' Zuma asks in the letter. He also wanted to know Ramaphosa's reasons for not dismissing Mchunu based on the allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police boss Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, that Mchunu had ties to criminal gangs and meddled in police investigations into politically motivated murders. Zuma also wanted to know what is the public benefit in having two ministers of police, adding that one is active, while the other one is on leave. 'What were the reasons why one of the 2 (two) Deputy Ministers of Police was not promoted to the position of Acting/Minister of Police as you did, for example, with Deputy Minister (Buti) Manamela who was subsequently promoted to Minister of Higher Education? What are the estimated costs to the taxpayers for the failure to act in a similar or consistent manner?' He said irrespective of the answers Ramaphosa might give, his conduct to place Mchunu on leave and appoint Cachalia remain illegal, irrational and unconstitutional. 'With the publicly available information as well as the pleadings and deliberations in the recent Constitutional Court proceedings, our client is of the view that, irrespective of any answers you might give to the above list of questions, the impugned conduct remains illegal and irrational and unconstitutional.' 'It may have been further compounded by the events which occurred between July 13 2025 and August 1, 2025 and which have a continuing adverse impact on the South African citizens and taxpayers, including our client,' the letter read, adding that Ramaphosa should withdraw his decision to place Mchunu on leave and the appointment of Cachalia. 'Due to the obvious urgency and importance of the issues raised above, these demands must be fulfilled immediately but by no later than 10h00 on Friday, August 8 2025, failing which all our client's rights are reserved, including the right to urgently approach the courts for appropriate relief, without any further notice to you.' [email protected]
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
MK Party condemns ConCourt's dismissal of court challenge against Ramaphosa
Thabo Makwakwa | Published 1 hour ago The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has voiced its strong condemnation of the Constitutional Court's recent decision to dismiss a critical challenge against President Cyril Ramaphosa's actions, asserting that the judiciary has failed to hold the head of state accountable for what the party describes as 'flagrant constitutional violations.' Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela issued a statement on Monday criticising the court's move. 'To the shock of most South Africans who believed that the rule of law still prevails, the Constitutional Court has unfortunately chosen to turn a blind eye and take the easy way out by hiding behind technicalities, instead of addressing the real issues that the MK Party has presented.' He added that the court's decision to defer the matter to the High Court effectively sidesteps what the MK Party sees as a looming constitutional crisis. The challenge was rooted in President Ramaphosa's decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave and to announce Professor Firoz Cachalia as the acting Police Minister, a move the MK Party argues contravenes constitutional provisions and undermines accountability. 'The Constitutional Court has abdicated its responsibility to hold the Executive accountable,' the statement continued. 'This decision disregards the courageous efforts of whistleblowers like General Mkhwanazi and many others who are committed to fostering a safer, more accountable South Africa.' The MK Party is not backing down and announced that it is exploring all peaceful avenues to press for justice. As part of its next steps, the party stated it issued a formal letter of demand to President Ramaphosa, requesting him to explain the ongoing constitutional turmoil. The party stated that among the questions posed are issues surrounding the funding of two Police Ministers and an allegedly 'illegal Commission of Inquiry', which the party says are politically motivated and fiscally irresponsible. 'We have also demanded that President Ramaphosa respond to a list of 15 questions by August 8, 2025, concerning his dealings with the CR17 and Phala Phala scandals, which continue to cast a shadow over his presidency,' Ndhlela explained. 'This crisis is unfolding at the expense of South Africans who deserve honest leadership and transparency.' In addition, the MK Party said it plans to write to the Chief Justice, urging the judiciary to furnish the reasons behind its recent ruling adding that once all pertinent information is obtained, the party promises to outline its next steps and inform the public accordingly. Furthermore, Ndhlela said the MK party remains unwavering in its stance that President Ramaphosa's resignation is in the country's best interest. 'Any political party or member of Parliament who votes against our forthcoming Motion of No Confidence should be prepared to face the justified anger of South Africans,' Ndhlela warned. The MK Party said it continues to organise peaceful demonstrations in support of whistleblowers and advocates for Ramaphosa's removal from office. [email protected] IOL Politics
