The AARTO Act: constitutional or unconstitutional?

The constitutional validity of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offences Amendment (AARTO Amendment) Act was recently challenged in the matter between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) v The Minister of Transport and others.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Units

The aim of the proposed Act is to create a system that uses administrative tribunals, administrative fines and demerit points to enforce traffic laws on a national level.

The argument

OUTA argued that the Act in its current form is unconstitutional on the following grounds:

  1. In terms of our Constitution, provincial and municipal traffic regulations fall under the legislative control of each province. The Act wishes to infringe upon the exclusive legislative authority of the provincial legislatures.
  2. The Act wishes to infringe upon how local government is to enforce traffic and parking laws at municipal level.

OUTA is of the opinion that national government does not have the administrative power to pass legislation regulating all road traffic and offences through national legislation as this intrudes on the exclusive competence of the provinces as well as the municipalities situated in each one.

The question before the Court, therefore, was whether the proposed legislation intrudes upon the competence of local and provincial government and whether the Act will prevent local and provincial spheres of government from regulating their own affairs.

The court’s decision

Honourable Judge Basson found in favour of OUTA and agreed with its position. She concluded that, “It therefore follows in my view that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act must be declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution in its entirety. It is therefore declared that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act are unconstitutional and invalid.” Council for the Minister requested an order that a 2 year period be provided to address the shortcomings in the Act. The court went further to decide that the Act cannot be “amended” as this would not be possible due to its unconstitutionality. 

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

Transfer and Bond Calculators
Legislative Guidelines

The Financial Intelligence Centre Act of 2001 and Cash Threshold Reporting[post_view before=""]

When does the reporting obligation arise for an accountable or reporting institution?

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

The advantages of a life right[post_view before=""]

The Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act 65 of 1988 introduced life rights as a formal form of ownership for retired people in South Africa. This legislation was implemented not only in response to the growth in the retirement village sector but also to provide legal protection to the elderly.

Read More
My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

Muslim marriages: A welcome Constitutional Court decision[post_view before=""]

In a long-awaited and groundbreaking decision in the area of family law, the Constitutional Court of South Africa (CC) confirmed the order of constitutional invalidity of the below mentioned Acts, granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal. This decision was confirmed on 28 June 2022.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

Selling a property without approved building plans[post_view before=""]

It’s often the case that a seller would like to sell – and a purchaser would like to buy – a property without approved building plans or an occupation certificate. But what does the law say?  In terms of the…

Read More
My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

The Divorce Act and marriage out of community of property without accrual[post_view before=""]

In this article, we explore the issue of the constitutional validity of section 7(3)(1) of the Divorce Act in respect of marriages entered into after 1 November 1984 and excluding the accrual system.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

The AARTO Act: constitutional or unconstitutional?

The constitutional validity of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act and the Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offences Amendment (AARTO Amendment) Act was recently challenged in the matter between the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) v The Minister of Transport and others.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Units

The aim of the proposed Act is to create a system that uses administrative tribunals, administrative fines and demerit points to enforce traffic laws on a national level.

The argument

OUTA argued that the Act in its current form is unconstitutional on the following grounds:

  1. In terms of our Constitution, provincial and municipal traffic regulations fall under the legislative control of each province. The Act wishes to infringe upon the exclusive legislative authority of the provincial legislatures.
  2. The Act wishes to infringe upon how local government is to enforce traffic and parking laws at municipal level.

OUTA is of the opinion that national government does not have the administrative power to pass legislation regulating all road traffic and offences through national legislation as this intrudes on the exclusive competence of the provinces as well as the municipalities situated in each one.

The question before the Court, therefore, was whether the proposed legislation intrudes upon the competence of local and provincial government and whether the Act will prevent local and provincial spheres of government from regulating their own affairs.

The court’s decision

Honourable Judge Basson found in favour of OUTA and agreed with its position. She concluded that, “It therefore follows in my view that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act must be declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution in its entirety. It is therefore declared that the AARTO Act and the Amendment Act are unconstitutional and invalid.” Council for the Minister requested an order that a 2 year period be provided to address the shortcomings in the Act. The court went further to decide that the Act cannot be “amended” as this would not be possible due to its unconstitutionality. 

Want more Snymans articles? Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.