Illegal speed fines are being issued

LYDENBURG – The DA recently issued a press statement citing that the Public Protector has found that the Department of Community Safety, Security and Liaison conducted speed-camera law-enforcement without the authorisation of the National Prosecuting Authority, and that all fines issued using this method from February 2, 2012 to March 31, 2012 were invalid.

The party said they had lodged a two-folded complaint with the Public Protector in April 2012 regarding the legality of speed fines issued during that period, as well as the department’s use of unmanned speed cameras for law enforcement in complete disregard of the necessary guidelines, and without the NPA’s authorisation to do so.

“In a letter dated October 16, the Public Protector confirmed that all fines issued during these two months were indeed invalid and requested the department to provide a list of all these fines.”

The party said while the Public Protector had not yet ruled on the use of unmanned speed cameras from 2008 to January 2012, finding that all fines issued through the use of cameras, manned or unmanned, will hold massive financial and other implications for the department.

“Furthermore, the department’s arrogance has compromised its speed law-enforcement ability, and potentially exposed itself and the MEC Vusi Shongwe to litigation. It may be obliged to refund all the fines issued and paid during that period, which could amount to millions of rand. The Public Protector’s finding on this matter vindicates the DA’s stance to protect the public from the department’s improper and potentially illegal use of speed cameras, and we will continue to do so until the matter is resolved.”

The department recently responded to the request into the allegations and said; “It is premature for the DA to issue a media statement while the matter is being considered by the Office of the Public Protector.

To put the matter into perspective, the department was required to request authorisation from the NPA only for the use of static or semi-static speed cameras. During the period in question, the department did not use these kind of cameras hence it was not necessary to request authorisation.”

The department also said for mobile pro-lazer speed law enforcement equipment, there was no need to obtain authorisation in order for traffic officers to enforce the law. That is the normal day to day operation of traffic officers.

“In light of the above, the DA misled the Office of Public Protector and the general public because it assumed that before the use of all speed cameras, permission should be sought from the NPA. This is only applicable to certain types of cameras.

In the spirit of enhancing road safety on our roads, the department requests that the DA withdraws its statement and wait for the finalisation of the matter because this has the potential of encouraging bad driving behaviour among motorists, and increase the number of accidents as a result of speeding.”

It said that road safety was a matter of life and death; hence the department requests political parties to refrain from making statements that might have devastating consequences. “People who received fines for traffic law violations are encouraged to pay them or settle them in court.”