Government Cannot Enforce AARTO Before Putting Motorists’ Legal Protections in Place

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) has launched an urgent High Court application to suspend the implementation of Phase 2 of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) system. OUTA argues that government has brought the amended legislation into force before establishing the legal safeguards that motorists are entitled to rely on. The application asks the Court to halt implementation until government has complied with its own legal and constitutional obligations.

OUTA is asking the High Court to suspend the implementation of the amended AARTO system while it reviews the legality of government’s decision to proclaim the AARTO Amendment Act and publish the accompanying 2026 Regulations.

Although OUTA supports stronger road safety measures and effective enforcement against dangerous and reckless drivers, it says these objectives cannot come at the expense of fairness, due process and the rule of law.

“Every South African benefits from safer roads and effective traffic law enforcement. OUTA has never opposed measures that improve road safety or hold reckless drivers accountable,” says Adv Stefanie Fick, OUTA’s Executive Director for Accountability.

“What we cannot accept is government enforcing a new legal regime before putting the protections promised by that very system in place. Government expects motorists to comply with the law. It must be prepared to meet the same standard.”

The urgent application follows the publication of presidential proclamations on 29 June 2026, which brought provisions of the amended AARTO Act into operation across 62 municipalities from 1 July 2026. The 2026 AARTO Regulations were published a day later, on 30 June.

Government has confirmed OUTA’s long-standing concerns

OUTA has scrutinised AARTO for more than six years. Although the Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutional validity of the legislation in 2023, OUTA consistently warned that implementing the amended system lawfully, fairly and practically would present significant challenges.

According to OUTA, recent events have demonstrated exactly why those concerns were justified.

“Our application is not asking the Court to reconsider whether AARTO is constitutional,” says Fick.

“That question has already been settled. The issue before the Court is whether government has lawfully implemented the amended system. Those are two very different questions.”

OUTA argues that government repeatedly assured the public that it was ready to implement the amended legislation. Yet key safeguards remain absent, important implementation questions remain unresolved and regulations that affect millions of South Africans were introduced without meaningful public participation.

A key safeguard is still missing

One of OUTA’s principal concerns is the absence of the independent Appeals Tribunal, an essential safeguard built into the amended AARTO framework.

The legislation expects motorists to use the Appeals Tribunal when challenging certain administrative decisions. OUTA argues that government has activated the enforcement provisions before ensuring that this independent mechanism is operational.

“In simple terms, government has switched on enforcement before switching on one of the most important protections available to motorists,” says Fick.

“When government removes or limits existing remedies, it has a legal duty to ensure that the alternatives created by Parliament are available and functional. That has simply not happened.”

OUTA believes this creates uncertainty for motorists who may be required to navigate a legal process without access to one of the key protections contemplated by the amended legislation.

OUTA also argues that the 2026 AARTO Regulations were introduced without meaningful public participation, despite fundamentally changing how the amended AARTO system will operate.

The regulations affect millions of motorists, municipalities, issuing authorities, fleet operators and businesses across South Africa. Yet neither the public nor many of the institutions expected to implement the system were given a meaningful opportunity to comment before the regulations were finalised.

Meaningful public participation is not a procedural formality. It is a constitutional safeguard that helps identify practical implementation challenges, improves the quality of legislation and promotes transparent decision-making.

“When government sidelines public participation, everyone loses,” says Fick.

“The people expected to comply with the law are often best placed to identify where it may fail in practice. Ignoring those voices weakens both public confidence and the legislation itself.”

OUTA argues that legislation affecting millions of South Africans should be developed through an open, transparent and consultative process, particularly where it introduces significant changes to people’s legal rights and obligations.

Why this matters to every motorist

This application is about far more than legal procedure.

Every South African who uses the country’s roads could be affected by the amended AARTO system. The legislation changes how traffic infringements are administered, how motorists challenge administrative decisions and how demerit points may ultimately affect driving licences.

OUTA believes government cannot expect widespread compliance with a new enforcement system while questions remain about whether the institutions, procedures and legal safeguards required by that system are fully operational.

“This case is not about protecting reckless drivers or delaying effective law enforcement,” says Fick.

“It is about ensuring that government respects the rule of law before exercising greater powers over the public. That principle protects every South African, regardless of whether they ever receive a traffic infringement.”

OUTA maintains that effective road safety and lawful governance are not competing objectives. Both are essential to building public trust and ensuring lasting compliance.

The relief OUTA is seeking

Through its urgent High Court application, OUTA is asking the Court to:

• Suspend the implementation of Phase 2 of the amended AARTO system pending the outcome of the review application.
• Review and set aside government’s decision to implement the amended AARTO legislation and publish the 2026 AARTO Regulations.
• Direct government to comply with all applicable legal and constitutional requirements before any further implementation takes place.

OUTA believes these steps are necessary to ensure that any future implementation of AARTO is lawful, procedurally fair and supported by the safeguards contemplated in the legislation.

Government must comply with the law before enforcing it

OUTA emphasises that this application is not an attempt to weaken road safety enforcement or prevent government from holding dangerous drivers accountable. Rather, it seeks to ensure that government applies the same legal standards to itself that it expects every South African to follow.

“If government is confident that it has complied with the law, it should welcome independent judicial scrutiny,” says Fick.

“The courts exist to determine whether public power has been exercised lawfully. That is exactly what this application asks them to do.”

She says public confidence in any enforcement system depends not only on its objectives but also on the integrity of the process used to introduce it.

“South Africans deserve a road traffic enforcement system that improves road safety, protects constitutional rights and is implemented lawfully. Those goals are entirely compatible.”

“Government cannot expect millions of people to place their trust in a system when some of its own legal safeguards remain absent. Compliance starts with government complying with the law.”

OUTA will continue to pursue legal accountability to ensure that legislation affecting millions of South Africans is implemented fairly, transparently and in accordance with the Constitution.