'E-toll interdict will become permanent'

The interim interdict against the Gauteng e-tolling system should be lifted, because the decision is too far off and the "temporary will become permanent".

This was the argument made by National Treasury lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett, at the Constitutional Court this morning.

The court is hearing an urgent application for leave to appeal against an interim interdict, granted in April to the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA), by the North Gauteng High Court, restraining the SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) from implementing e-tolling.

The urgent application has been brought by National Treasury and Sanral. The interdict has seen e-tolling suspended, pending the final determination of an application for the review and setting aside of the controversial system.

Gauntlett argued that the final decision regarding e-tolling, after the judicial review, is too far off and the "temporary becomes permanent". He said the final judgement most likely won't happen before next year.

He also argued that the interim interdict is "highly unrealistic", because the system is ready to go and now needs to be paid for. The final tariffs can be ready in about two weeks if need be, Gauntlett added.

He also raised the issue of Sanral's financial losses that will result from the delay in implementing e-tolling.

Treasury contends the application for leave to appeal raises important constitutional issues that are integral to the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers. These have wide-ranging consequences for public finance and the national economy, according to the Constitutional Court.

"They submit that an urgent direct appeal to this court is justified, because there is a pressing public interest in the expedited, final determination of the question whether alternative means must, in the interim, be found to fund the GFIP [Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project] should the interim order stand."

Treasury has requested that the court determine whether the High Court applied the correct test to grant an interim interdict.

OUTA's stance is that e-tolling would have prejudicial consequences for many thousands of commuters in Gauteng. It also says the costs of its implementation are so excessive as to be reviewable on the ground that they are unreasonable.

It also argues that the decisions under attack are not political, economic or so policy-laden as to warrant judicial deference.

The hearing continues.