South African municipalities have written off billions of rand in unpaid traffic fines deemed unrecoverable, reigniting scrutiny of the country’s traffic fine collection system and prompting calls for legislative reform to enable electronic issuing and collection.
At the core of the challenge is a system still heavily reliant on paper notices, registered mail, court deadlines, and enforcement orders. Compounding the issue is a revenue-sharing arrangement that municipalities say assigns them substantial administrative work while returning insufficient funds.
Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts chairperson Songezo Zibi has suggested that existing legislation may require amendment to expressly permit electronic issuing and collection of traffic fines. This raises critical questions: What does current law allow? What rights do motorists retain? And would electronic fines resolve systemic inefficiencies or introduce new legal and consumer protection risks?
Andrea van Heerden, senior legal project manager at the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA), provided clarity on the current legal framework. She noted that geographical jurisdiction matters: in Johannesburg and Pretoria, metropolitan authorities operate under the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act, which mandates that fines be issued via registered mail or through the post office. Other municipalities, while not necessarily using AARTO, similarly rely on registered mail for issuing infringement notices.
However, change is imminent. Van Heerden confirmed that the AARTO Amendment Act—already signed by the President—will take effect nationwide on 1 July, as indicated by Minister Barbara Creecy. This amendment shifts the method of issuing fines from physical mail to electronic service.
While the write-offs represent a significant loss of much-needed revenue, Van Heerden cautioned against framing traffic enforcement primarily as a revenue stream. “It shouldn’t be a revenue stream or a money-making scheme,” she stated. “It should be about road safety and changing the behaviour of motorists.”
The reliability of the South African Post Office remains a central concern, particularly for camera-issued fines such as speed or traffic light violations, which depend on postal delivery. Spot fines, issued directly during roadside checks, bypass this channel entirely. Van Heerden acknowledged that while digital transition could ease administrative burdens, it must be accompanied by robust safeguards.
Addressing proposals that SMS or email notification alone could constitute legal service, Van Heerden emphasised that any electronic system must be reliable, traceable, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating compliance with statutory requirements. This is especially critical with the impending rollout of the demerit point system, where failure to respond to a fine could result in licence suspension. “The proof that government needs to have that this person actually got the traffic fine is much higher on government itself,” she said.
Under current registered mail provisions, a fine is deemed received 10 days after posting, regardless of actual delivery. Van Heerden warned that electronic systems may adopt similar “deemed service” clauses, making it imperative that multiple delivery methods be employed. OUTA’s position is that authorities should use “any and all methods”—including email, SMS, and registered post—to maximise the likelihood of actual receipt.
As Parliament considers further amendments, Van Heerden outlined three essential safeguards for any reformed system:
1. **Reliability and Verification**: Systems must include mechanisms—such as read receipts or confirmation protocols—to verify that contact details are active and that notices reach the intended recipient, avoiding a mere “tick-box” exercise.
2. **Procedural Fairness Over Administrative Efficiency**: “Administrative efficiency should not override procedural fairness or due process,” Van Heerden stressed. Systems must prioritise confirming that road users actually received fines before penalties escalate.
3. **Clarity of Purpose**: Enforcement must remain focused on improving road safety and modifying driver behaviour, not merely on revenue collection or administrative convenience. A clear distinction must be maintained between legitimate law enforcement and efforts aimed solely at easing bureaucratic processes.
Van Heerden also noted that while Parliament’s portfolio committee is exploring legislative changes, the AARTO Amendment Act—already enacted and awaiting implementation—directly addresses electronic service provisions. “Parliament needs to do a little bit more work into their own work,” she observed, suggesting that existing legislative frameworks may already provide the necessary foundation.
As the 1 July implementation date approaches, the balance between modernising enforcement, protecting motorist rights, and ensuring fiscal accountability remains central to the national conversation on traffic justice.
