While concurring with certain findings of the e-tolls review panel's report released last week, civil action group the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) has described the panel’s criticism of civil disobedience in reaction to e-tolling as “contradictory”.

“At the outset, we reject the position taken by the panel that there is ‘no justification for civil disobedience’ and that ‘boycotting e-tolls sets unsustainable precedents and threatens democracy and social cohesion’.

“We are perturbed that the panel can conclude that there is no justification for civil disobedience, while also having found that e-tolling places an unfair socioeconomic burden on poorer citizens. This essentially boils down to a puzzling contradiction by the panel,” the organisation said on Tuesday.

Engineering News Online reported last week that a panel of transport experts tasked last year by Gauteng Premier David Makhura with determining the impact of e-tolls on the province had described the current system as “unaffordable and inequitable”, adding in a report made public that it placed a disproportionate financial burden on low- and middle-income households.

The panel’s report contained over 50 recommendations, including that the current e-toll system be reviewed to address issues of affordability, equity, fairness, administrative “simplicity” and sustainability and that a hybrid-funding model be investigated.

While Outa, which was currently compiling its own in-depth report in response to the panel’s findings, applauded the panel for strongly espousing a “human rights approach” to the assessment of e-tolling, it added that the panel did not adequately criticise government and the South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) for its limited public consultation prior to the implementation of the user-pays system.

Moreover, Outa argued that the panel did not recognise the responsibility of Sanral in “allowing” construction companies to overcharge for e-toll infrastructure.

“We believe the panel has been remiss in not going deeper on this issue and should probably have indicated the need for an independent commission of enquiry to expose what many deem a gross waste of taxpayers funds,” the alliance outlined.

It did, however, acknowledge that the panel was “purely advisory” and did not have judicial powers to interrogate evidence presented or subpoena testimony.

“Within this narrow scope of its terms of reference, the panel has, at least, confirmed what Outa has asserted from the start that e-tolling is purely a means of paying off a financial debt rather than a long-term economic intervention,” said the group.

However, Outa further accused the panel of failing to conduct a detailed assessment of the “status quo” and, thus, the “unworkability” of the e-tolling system, as well as largely ignoring a strong proposal for the use of National Treasury funding in lieu of the user-pays principle.

“The [panel’s recommendations] excluded [the introduction of] a possible fuel levy, which attracts no administrative costs and inefficiencies, yet would distribute the cost more equitably and be weighted to the tax base.

“This was the overwhelmingly favoured solution presented by many respected entities during the panel’s hearings,” Outa stated.

The Gauteng provincial government and central government structures were currently working together to determine “the best way forward” based on the findings of the report, and would make an announcement to this effect in late February.