On Tuesday, a law abiding citizen, John Clarke, responded to the South African National Road Agency’s (Sanral’s) recent claim of its first e-toll prosecution, labelling it a sham and challenging the state-owned entity to charge him for not paying his e-toll bills.

The response to Clarke’s ‘charge me’ video message by Sanral spokesman Vusi Mona was typical of a spin-doctor who finds the potato his organisation has cooked too hot to handle. It is laughable for Mona to suggest that Sanral is not a law enforcement agency and is therefore not best placed to charge Clarke. He must surely know that the South African Police Services or the National Prosecuting Authority will only act if a charge is laid by an individual or organisation that feels aggrieved by the actions of another.

The organisation best placed to press criminal charges for non-payment of e-toll bills is indeed Sanral and Mona’s spin-doctor technique to get out of answering the question has the makings of an interesting charade. By doing nothing, Sanral will merely confirm the unlawfulness or unenforceability of e-tolls, from whence the scheme and the authorities will suffer a crisis of legitimacy.

More interesting in Mona’s response to Clarke’s call, is his reference that the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) should take heed of advocate David Broughton’s statement during the Stoyan Stoychev case last week: “It is a notorious fact that some within our society have vociferously urged the public to refuse to comply with the legislation pertaining to the e-toll system. This is clear incitement to commit a crime and is intended to render the e-toll system unworkable.”

Mona’s comment insinuates that Outa has no right to challenge Sanral’s ongoing propaganda or share its opinions on Sanral’s regular misleading statements with the public. But if indeed Sanral is to fire its intimidating salvos at Outa, it also needs to aim them at the camps of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), the faith-based institutions and many business organisations (like the South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Automobile Association, the Black Management Forum, etc), whose many denouncements of the e-toll scheme could also very well have incited heightened levels of civil courage to defy the scheme.

Outa has made no secret of its views and opinions that the e-toll scheme is an irrational one, laboring with gross inefficiencies, high costs, and that the public have every right to be peeved with the e-toll decision. And let’s be frank, the general public reaction to irrational and unjust policies is normally one of rejection, often leading to its unworkability. It’s a world-wide phenomenon. As the saying goes, stupid policies attract disdain and command very little respect from the public.

It is thus strongly argued that the e-toll scheme’s unworkability is not of Outa’s doing. Outa certainly does not have the power to undermine a scheme that was supposedly well researched and planned with the best technology and specialists around. Not to mention one supported by a multimillion-rand marketing campaign. No civil organisation has the ability to convince the public to shun a good thing. Instead, Outa’s only ability has been to expose the truth and the facts upon which the media and the public have decided what appears to be out of line, and what is not.

The e-toll scheme was always going to be unworkable because of the actions of none other than Sanral and a government that never took sufficient time to seriously question the research and claims of what was clearly a grandiose but ill-conceived plan. Instead, they chose to shun the opinions of their critics, who said the e-toll scheme was inefficient and would further suffer from its reliance on the dismal eNatis vehicle licensing system, the Post Office, the impractical regulatory environment and a weak enforcement ability.

For the past three years, Sanral has constantly blamed others (Outa, Cosatu, the David Makhura e-toll panel, etc) for the scheme’s failure, never once looking inward or contemplating that just maybe, it has been the master of its own destiny. To many, it’s a classic case of how the arrogant are unable to eat the humble pie placed squarely on their plate. Personally, I find it rather tragic to watch Sanral operate with this mind-set, displaying no need for deep introspection, instead blundering merrily along with a ‘business as usual’ attitude, hoping that its threats of criminal prosecution or withholding vehicle licences will coerce enough people to comply. It will simply not happen at the levels required for success and this approach is most certainly unsustainable.

I would not be too wrong in saying that Sanral has probably spent more time in court defending its behaviour, than any other state-owned entity, over the past five to 10 years. One would trust that this in itself would be of serious concern to the board of this once highly respected organisation. I wonder if the Sanral board does actually ponder on such pertinent matters and what would have to happen for Sanral to climb out of its cultural abyss and move forward, into a space of positive, engaging energy.

Maybe the imminent retirement of Sanral CEO Nazir Alli will trigger a new direction the agency so desperately needs. Who knows? But until then, we do know that if Sanral is to truly be the learning organisation that it claims to be, it needs to invite and listen to its critics, instead of vilifying them and blaming others for its demise. DM