The SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) has denied that it kept the public in the dark as to government's plans to toll Gauteng's road network, as claimed by opposition on Monday.
Yesterday presented Sanral with an opportunity to counter accusatory claims by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) that the government-owned agency flouted the law and ignored the rights of Gauteng's citizens by advancing the e-tolling system without proper consultation or due process.
Presenting its counter-argument in the Pretoria court, Sanral's legal representative, advocate David Unterhalter, told the court that Outa's allegations were serious and entirely unfounded. Sanral's counter-claim, he says, is underpinned by notices and publications over the past five years that indicate "extensive consultation" with affected parties on the proposed e-toll system.
Detailed evidence
Other government stakeholders in the e-tolling process (namely National Treasury and the Department of Transport, or DOT) were present in allegiance with Sanral, lending credence to the body's claim that the public was well-informed and sufficiently included in the e-toll process since inception.
DOT spokesperson Tiyani Rikhotso says the department's legal teams took the court through all the stages relating to the process, dating back to 2007 when the declaration to toll the road network in question was first made.
"The court was given detailed evidence of the thorough consultation processes that were followed by government in the past five years."
Today - the third and final day of the judicial review of e-tolls - will see state parties presenting their final arguments. Rikhotso says the DOT will "today demystify that notion that this process was done illegally". He says the department remains positive on the matter.
Critics' credibility
Sanral further questioned the credibility of Outa as an organisation and what it stands for - as well as what it claims is a last-minute attempt to slam the brakes on a project that Outa knew about, but ignored, for years.
Unterhalter queried the "11th hour protest" by Outa - a point that has been brought into the argument a number of times during the ongoing saga. Unterhalter said the alliance stood by for years while construction was taking place on Gauteng's roads, all the while knowing that motorists would eventually be subject to a user-pay system.
He hinted at inherent inconsistencies in Outa's approach, citing a shift in its stance towards e-tolls, from challenging the actual system - to challenging the procedures associated with it.
Rikhotso says, important to note, is that Outa "changed their argument altogether" after the Constitutional Court had earlier overturned a decision of this court to halt the implementation of e-tolling.
Anyone's game
The court will today hear the parties' final arguments and at this stage there is no clarity on what the outcome will be.
National Treasury's legal counsel Jeremy Gauntlet will continue to plead the case for e-tolls, while Outa will have its final say and plug for a toll-free Gauteng province.
Outa chairperson Wayne Duvenage says, in terms of Sanral's argument yesterday, "nothing new" was brought to the table.
"We have to listen to their side as well, but - quite frankly - we heard nothing strong in their argument that worries us. Our grounds [for contest] are solid - they are based on the unlawfulness of the process and the fact that government usurped the individual's constitutional rights.
"Sanral flouted section 27 of their Act, as well as the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, by not engaging with the public and misleading citizens to avoid the very outcry we are seeing now."
Duvenage refutes the claim that the public was well-informed every step of the way, and asks: "Well if that was the case - why the public outcry now?"
Outa continues to enjoy widespread support, as evidenced on social media platforms throughout the week. Yesterday, while Sanral was busy defending its cause in court, Outa was trending on Twitter in SA as supporters "retweeted" support for the organisation.
But Duvenage says there is no certainty - from either side - as to which way the judge's favour will swing and it is really anyone's game at this stage.
"They [Sanral] feel they took the wind out our sails, and we feel our argument is strong and that they brought nothing new to the table. Both sides feel theirs is a strong case."
Sanral says, as the matter is still before the court "and as a responsible party to the proceedings" the agency will reserve comment to after the review. "We believe the court is doing its job and will await the decision."
Share
