Amid a growing barrage of criticism, aimed at government and the South African National Road Agency (Sanral) for undermining the e-toll review panel even before it has concluded its hearings, Sanral is attempting to explain its position.
The agency has been described as secretive and arrogant for its refusal to appear before the 15-member panel, appointed by Gauteng premier David Makhura, to investigate the socio-economic impact of e-tolls on Gauteng's citizens.
However, Sanral now says it informed Makhura about why it would not be able to take part in the process, saying its board sent "an eight-page communique" to the premier, prior to the commencement of the panel's hearings.
"We took a proactive step and communicated our position on this matter. We also requested an audience with the premier to understand his position and exchange views on how, together, we can address the challenges of funding road infrastructure, without it being at the expense of social infrastructure. Perceptions that we were not prepared to enter into dialogue are, therefore, unfortunate," said Sanral acting board chairperson Dudu Nyamane.
As for a presentation before the panel, the agency says it could not do this, as its board is guided by the Sanraland National Roads Acts, and is ultimately accountable and responsible to the minister of transport for the affairs of the agency. "This means the position has always been clear: the user-pays principle is a national policy which was implemented with the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP)," it says.
Political interference
Recently, transport minister Dipuo Peters drew fire from e-toll opponents, when she distanced herself from the panel and downplayed the role of the review. Her dismissal of the review having any real impact on e-tolling comes after reports of an instruction handed down by Luthuli House, in which Sanral and transport officials were instructed by ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe to not co-operate with the panel.
However, Sanral has dismissed any political interference. "We do not take instructions from any political party, as was recently reported in the media, but from the shareholder [minister of transport] and the relevant legislation governing Sanral. We are an implementing agency of government," says Nyamane.
"The user-pays principle is a fair system that has made it possible to improve the vital roads of Gauteng - the economic dynamo of South Africa. To also bring sanity to the question of Sanral and tolling: our portfolio is made up as follows: 85% non-toll, 14% toll and 1% e-toll.
It is unfortunate that a single percentage of Sanral's work has been the cause of much misinformation, propaganda and belligerence - to such an extent that at times it threatened the mandate of such an important national asset."
The current e-toll funding model has also attracted much criticism from civic and business organisations, which have repeatedly called for a switch to the fuel levy as a means of paying for the freeway improvement project.
But Nyamane says the agency gets an allocation from National Treasury to look after the non-toll national roads (85% of its network) and also raises money from capital markets to fund its toll operations, which constitute 15% of the agency's road portfolio.
"Therefore, the argument directed at Sanral that it should fund the GFIP through a fuel levy is misdirected. Sanral does not collect the fuel levy. Besides, treasury has explained why it does not ring-fence the fuel levy and why, from an equity point of view, a decision was taken to fund the GFIP through tolling," she said.
Hiding something
This morning, Congress of South African Trade Unions general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi told Eyewitness News that Sanral is refusing to take part in the e-toll assessment process, because the agency have no respect for the views of the public.
Vavi also stated Sanral doesn't want to take part in the process, because it "clearly has something to hide".
"But the people who have respect for the views of our people will go. So Sanral [has] no respect whatsoever for the views of the public and let them stay away, but I don't think that should stop the panel to make informed decisions," he was quoted as saying.