The Swellendam Municipality has responded to growing public concern following the circulation of allegations and a detailed report raising questions about the legality and procedural integrity of recent traffic enforcement roadblocks.
At the centre of the issue is the use of a mobile paypoint system to collect fines on-site. This practice that has sparked public debate and calls for greater clarity regarding the process and the roles of those involved.
In the official statement, Swellendam Municipal Manager Anneleen Vorster described the allegations as “unverified and misleading,” asserting that all operations were conducted in accordance with municipal policy and national financial procedures.
“Swellendam Municipality has contracted a duly appointed service provider to supply and manage the Paypoint infrastructure,” the statement noted. “All collected funds are managed and deposited following municipal financial procedures.”
The Municipality emphasized that such mobile systems are used in other municipalities across South Africa and are not unique to Swellendam.
However, legal observers and members of the public have expressed concern – not with the existence of the paypoint system itself, but with how it was implemented and who was involved in handling fines and public money.
According to publicly available information and contractual details cited in the discussion, individuals referred to as “MM cashiers” were reportedly not appointed as municipal officials, nor designated as traffic or peace officers under relevant national legislation.
Specifically, Section 3A of the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA) 93 of 1996 outlines the required designation for traffic officers, and Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 51 of 1977 governs the appointment of peace officers.
It is important to note that failure to comply with these laws may create legal uncertainty around the enforcement and collection process – though no formal finding has been made in this regard.
The Municipality’s response did not explicitly confirm whether all reduced fines were handled within the 30-day period as stipulated under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows for a 50% discount on fines during that time.
After this period, fines are no longer considered infringements but become summonses, which fall under the authority of a State Prosecutor. This has raised questions about whether this distinction was adequately observed during the roadblock operations.
“The law is clear: once the 30-day period passes, the matter moves into the court’s domain,” a legal commentator explained. “It would be helpful for the Municipality to clarify whether any post-deadline reductions were referred to the Prosecutor, as required.”
Another area of uncertainty relates to the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) Act, 1998, which has not yet been adopted in the Western Cape. Some procedures referenced by the Municipality appear similar to AARTO-based systems, leading to confusion among residents about which legal framework is currently in effect.
“They appear to be implementing procedures aligned with AARTO, but that legislation does not currently apply in this province That could create room for procedural discrepancies.”
The Municipality also criticized what it referred to as “online news entities” and “so-called whistleblowers,” warning against the spread of unverified claims on social media and encouraging residents to report concerns using its official whistleblower platform.
While the call for responsible civic engagement has been welcomed by some, others argue that the Municipality should address the legal questions directly to foster public confidence.
“The public is simply asking for transparency,” a local resident said. “If everything was above board, then the timelines, authorisations, and procedures should be easy to show.”
No formal complaint or legal action has yet been filed regarding the roadblock procedures, but several residents have indicated their intention to request a review or investigation by provincial authorities to assess compliance with relevant legislation and the Municipality’s own financial governance policies.
Key Questions Still Unanswered
- Were all fines reduced within the 30-day legal window, or were any treated as summonses without prosecutorial review?
- Were the individuals handling cash officially appointed as municipal cashiers under applicable law?
- Was there any formal guidance or policy in place from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to support on-the-spot fine reductions by local officials?
Until these questions are addressed with supporting documentation, calls for clarification are likely to continue. In the meantime, residents are encouraged to engage through verified channels and await any further updates from the Municipality.
