South Africa


High court puts brakes on licence demerit system

High court puts brakes on licence demerit system
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has halted government’s driving “points demerit” system. (Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks)

Judge Annali Basson has ruled enabling legislation as being unconstitutional. 

The introduction of a long-awaited “points demerit” system for drivers is on hold again after a ruling on Thursday in the Pretoria high court that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional.

Judge Annali Basson has ruled in favour of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa), agreeing with its submissions that the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (the Aarto Act) and a subsequent amendment, did not pass constitutional muster.

This was because the legislation intruded on the exclusive legislative competences of local and provincial governments in relation to road traffic matters.

The ruling will mean that the government will have to go back to the drawing board.

Judge Basson wrote that the dispute was not about the desirability of the legislation, which provides for penalising drivers guilty of infringements or offences through demerit points, which could lead to the suspension and cancellation of driver’s licences.

The issue at hand, she said, was the legislative competence of national government to enact the two acts.

Outa submitted that the acts trespassed on the narrow constitutional areas over which the national government has no legislative or executive power — provincial and municipal roads.

Outa said it had been actively involved in the public participation process leading up to the enactment of the legislation, and had spoken out about its concerns and had written two letters to President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019, raising the issue of constitutional invalidity.

Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula opposed the application.

He confirmed that the Aarto Act created a single national system of road traffic regulation to “regulate every aspect of road traffic”.

The amendment act, he said, shifted the default system of judicial enforcement of traffic laws through criminal law to a compulsory system of administrative enforcement, through tribunals, administrative fines and the demerit points system under the Road Traffic Infringement Authority and Appeals Tribunals, all appointed by the national minister.

This was permissible, he argued.

Judge Basson said the proposed new dispensation moved all enforcement of all road and traffic laws to national level. This, she said, was contrary to the Constitution, which stipulates that each sphere of government must exercise its powers in a manner that does not encroach on the other unless there is a strong case of national interest.

She said the Constitution gives provinces and municipalities exclusive powers over roads and traffic in their jurisdictions.

She agreed with submissions by Outa’s advocate Matthew Chaskalson that this meant that what had been given to local government could not be taken away by national government, a matter which has been pronounced upon before by the Constitutional Court.

Judge Basson said while the minister had argued that the court should suspend any constitutional invalidity for 24 months to allow Parliament to rectify the defect, she did not believe this to be practical or possible.

“Once the provisions relating to provincial roads … or municipal roads, traffic or parking by-law infringement are removed, what would remain would not be able to give effect to the main objective of the statute … there would also be no purpose in setting up the administrative machinery if the vast majority of road traffic infringements do not fall within their jurisdiction.

“It therefore follows in my view that the Act and the amendment Act must be declared inconsistent with the Constitution in their entirety”.

Outa, in a statement, said the legislation in its current format, did nothing to improve road safety or reduce road fatalities.

“This time around, we trust the relevant departments will engage meaningfully with civil society to obtain our input when developing such important policies for the country,” said Advocate Stefanie Fick, Executive Director of the Accountability and Governance Divisions of Outa.

“It is unfortunate that government once again chose to ignore valid concerns and well researched input, and pushed ahead with the amendment. Not only did they waste a lot of time, but also valid resources. The Aarto roll-out will have to be stopped while the act is once again amended and taken through the legislative process. Only then can it be implemented.” DM

First published by GroundUp.


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Tim Price says:

    Typical #voetsekANC behaviour. Poorly considered and drafted legislation enacted since 1994 has led to a massive amount of unnecessary litigation and costs to sort the mess out. Think National Credit Act, PIE Act among others.

  • Christopher Bedford says:


    Come on, DM – your literacy is better than that.

  • Monika Iuel says:


  • Dr Know says:

    ‘Breaks’ indeed. What broke? Reminds me of the Capitol Hill riot protesters with their posters of their right to ‘bare’ arms – I say let them wear short sleeves if they want, who cares. Go brake a leg . . .

  • Dr Know says:

    Jolly good, a victory for the downtrodden etc. etc. but we know that there are a good deal of drivers who need a mandatory rehabilitation programme more than they need oxygen. The problem is, like all of our good rules, who will enforce it.

  • Colin Attwell says:

    Not sure if this is another “ice-cream on the forehead”, or a full on “pie in the face”. Either way, the incompetence is staggeringly funny, were it not potentially so serious.

  • Rob Wilson says:

    Well, in the context of the last paragraph, perhaps it is ‘breaks’, as in gaps in the process? OUTA chose the most appropriate aspect to tackle for sure.

  • Tom Learmont says:

    “Breaks” instead of brakes — and in another piece, “Clapping” instead of “klapping”. This is not the subbing I expected from DM.

    • Sam Joubs says:

      I have also noticed a drop in standards during the last few months. Perhaps DM would like to clarify. Just because we are in that type of republic, not everyone likes to eat pananas all the time.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted


This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

A South African Hero: You

There’s a 99.7% chance that this isn’t for you. Only 0.3% of our readers have responded to this call for action.

Those 0.3% of our readers are our hidden heroes, who are fuelling our work and impacting the lives of every South African in doing so. They’re the people who contribute to keep Daily Maverick free for all, including you.

The equation is quite simple: the more members we have, the more reporting and investigations we can do, and the greater the impact on the country.

Be part of that 0.3%. Be a Maverick. Be a Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

MavericKids vol 3

How can a child learn to read if they don't have a book?

81% of South African children aged 10 can't read for meaning. You can help by pre-ordering a copy of MavericKids.

For every copy sold we will donate a copy to Gift of The Givers for children in need of reading support.