Just weeks after AARTO’s expanded rollout took effect, the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) has launched an urgent High Court application seeking to suspend Phase 2 of the system, arguing that the amended AARTO framework was brought into operation before key legal safeguards were in place.
Phase 2, which came into effect on 1 July, expanded AARTO’s administrative traffic enforcement framework to 62 municipalities, moving traffic infringements onto a centralised administrative system with electronic notifications and stricter timelines for motorists to pay, challenge, or transfer liability for fines. The demerit points system has not yet been introduced.
The application, filed in the High Court in Pretoria on 15 July, asks the Court temporarily to suspend Phase 2 pending the outcome of a review challenging the President’s 29 June proclamations bringing parts of the amended AARTO Act into operation, together with the 2026 AARTO Regulations published on 30 June, a day before implementation began on 1 July.
“This isn’t about opposing road safety or letting offenders off the hook. We fully support effective law enforcement,” said Andrea van Heerden, OUTA’s senior legal project manager.
“Our concern is that government has implemented the amended AARTO system before putting key legal safeguards in place.”
For motorists, nothing changes for now. The filing of the application does not affect the current rollout. Unless the High Court grants the interim relief sought by OUTA, Phase 2 remains in force, and traffic infringements continue to be administered under the current system.
The High Court has not yet indicated when the urgent application will be heard.
Appeals Tribunal yet to be established
One of OUTA’s main arguments concerns the Independent Appeals Tribunal, which was created as part of the amended AARTO framework.
According to the application, the Tribunal is intended to be one of the safeguards available to motorists challenging certain administrative decisions under the new system. OUTA argues that the government brought the amended enforcement provisions into operation before making that appeal mechanism available, leaving motorists without one of the protections Parliament intended to accompany the amended legislation.
The Organisation says this means motorists may be required to navigate parts of the amended AARTO process without access to one of the safeguards built into the system.
“For example, the Independent Appeals Tribunal, which motorists are supposed to use to challenge certain decisions, isn’t yet operational,” Van Heerden said.
Questions over the regulations
OUTA is also challenging the way the 2026 AARTO Regulations were introduced.
The Organisation argues that the regulations fundamentally affect motorists, municipalities, fleet operators, and businesses, yet were finalised without giving the public a meaningful opportunity to comment.
According to the application, previous AARTO regulations were published for public consultation over several years, creating what OUTA says was a legitimate expectation that stakeholders would again be invited to comment before the regulations were finalised.
“We also believe the new regulations were introduced without meaningful public consultation, despite affecting millions of South Africans,” Van Heerden said.
She said the government “cannot expect the public to comply with the new legal system if it hasn’t complied with its own legal obligations”.
What OUTA wants the court to do
OUTA is asking the High Court temporarily to suspend Phase 2 of the rollout pending the outcome of its review application challenging the government’s decision to bring parts of the amended AARTO Act into operation and to publish the 2026 regulations.
Through the review, the Organisation wants the Court to review and set aside the President’s proclamations and the publication of the 2026 regulations or, alternatively, declare them unlawful and invalid. It also wants the government to comply with the applicable legal and constitutional requirements before any further implementation of the amended system proceeds.
Van Heerden said OUTA’s objective was not to prevent AARTO from being implemented, but to ensure that it is introduced in accordance with the law.
“We are asking the Court to ensure that AARTO is implemented lawfully, fairly, and in a way that protects the rights of all road users.”
Not the first legal challenge
OUTA’s application is the latest in a series of legal challenges that have delayed AARTO’s rollout since the legislation was passed in 1998.
Most recently, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) sought to halt the implementation of Phase 2 shortly before it came into effect on 1 July. SALGA’s urgent application raised concerns about municipalities’ operational readiness, the regulatory framework, and the funding model underpinning the rollout. It argued that municipalities had not been adequately consulted and would be expected to absorb significant implementation costs.
On 30 June, the Gauteng High Court dismissed the application after finding that SALGA had not demonstrated the urgency required for the matter to be heard on an urgent basis. Importantly, the court did not rule on the substantive merits of SALGA’s objections.
SALGA has since indicated that it intends to pursue those issues through the normal court process.
