Commuters have right to choose how they travel: Santaco
'Among these are uneven regulation and enforcement. While both e-hailing and metered taxis are subject to licensing under the National Land Transport Act, poor enforcement has resulted in an uneven playing field. An estimated 79% of e-hailing operators operate without valid licences. Meter taxis face rigid area restrictions, leading to higher operational costs, while e-hailing operators enabled by digital platforms operate across municipal boundaries and obviously some are even interprovincial. This has intensified perception of unfair competition and safety concerns and no-go
Santaco Gauteng chair Midday Mali believes KZN police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi would have resolved most of the Gauteng violence issues.
'I do believe if we had Mkhwanazi, most of these issues could have been resolved a long time ago, because we are reporting as the structures that we are facing challenges in our regions, in our province, there are conflicts that are there,' he said.
The legal system needs to be scrutinised as it creates and allows criminal elements to do as they wish within the industry, he added.
Tsebe said the public has the right to choose its mode of transport.
'You have the right to choose how you travel, whether by private car, e-hailing, meter taxi, bus, train or taxi. You've got a choice. The only thing you must do is to make sure you are safe. No commuter should ever be told what service to use or be punished for their choice.
'Your safety is our priority. We will not rest until public transport SA is safe, fair and free of violence.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
9 hours ago
- IOL News
Standard Bank accused of 'frustrating the administration of justice' in Rand manipulation case
The Constitutional Court in Johannesburg listened to a third day of legal arguments relating to allegations of Rand-fixing, following an appeal by the Competition Commission. Image: Timothy Bernard / Independent Newspapers While Standard Bank accused the Competition Commission of 'sticking to its bloody-minded ignorance' by continuing to accuse the bank of allegedly being part of a cartel which manipulated the Rand/US dollar exchange, the commission had hit back to say the bank is pulling out all the stops in a bid not to face the music. Advocate Kate Hofmeyr, acting for Standard Bank, told the Constitutional Court this week that in 2017, when the commission told the media about its allegations that the banks were allegedly involved in an international cartel colluding to manipulate the Rand/US dollar, Standard Bank's share price dropped in a few days by 3.8%, which equated to R8.5bn. She argued that while the commission was investigating the case for a year and a half, it did not meet with Standard Bank at all to obtain information from it regarding the matter. Hofmeyr said because there was no proper investigation by the commission, it got its facts wrong. In turn, Standard Bank suffered reputational damages while these allegations are hanging over its head. She told the apex court that Standard Bank should not face the music and be subjected to a trial on the merits of the alleged Rand rigging issue, as it is not involved in the matter. The commission turned to the Constitutional Court to appeal the judgment of the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) issued last year, in which it found that the majority of the banks do not have to face a trial on the merits of the allegations. Local banks which form part of the appeal as respondents, together with various international banks, are Standard Bank, FirstRand Bank and Nedbank. In his rebuttal on Thursday following Standard Bank's submissions, Advocate Thembeka Ngcukaitobi, acting for the commission, argued that of all the respondent banks, Standard Bank is the most aggressive litigant. He said this matter has been running for the past 10 years because of procedural objections from the respondents, of which Standard Bank is the forerunner. 'We are subjected to protracted legal challenges by this bank, which pleads innocence.' Ngcukaitobi said while banks, such as Standard Bank had the financial resources to resort to these legal challenges, the commission did not have the same money to face these powerful entities. He accused the bank of frustrating the administration of justice in this matter. Ngcukaitobi said Standard Bank claimed that it did its own investigation into the allegations that there was a single overreaching conspiracy to manipulate the Rand/US dollar exchange. 'But they never told us what they found'. He argued that it would be irresponsible of the commission to simply not include Standard Bank in its referral to the tribunal simply because the bank said it is not part of the collusion. Three of the banks which lost their cases before the CAC – BNP, CSS and HBEU – meanwhile also appealed that ruling before the apex court. BNP submits that the CAC erred in dismissing its exception and argued that the commission's referral is contradictory, vague and embarrassing. It said that requiring it to answer to the allegations, violates its right to a fair hearing. CSS in turn argued that the commission never initiated a complaint against it, rendering its joinder unlawful and beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction. It also argued that the commission did not have jurisdiction over it as it does not have South African ties. The respondent banks that succeeded in the CAC meanwhile support that court's findings. They submitted that the commission has not pleaded sufficient facts to sustain a case against them, that the referral affidavit improperly conflates legal entities, and that the evidence relied upon is speculative and inconsistent with the required elements of a single overreaching conspiracy. [email protected]
Mail & Guardian
19 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Competition Competition has no evidence of rand manipulation, banks say
The commission launched a case in 2015 against 28 local and international banks, alleging they colluded to fix the dollar-rand exchange rate. Banks implicated in rand manipulation argued at the Constitutional Court on Wednesday that the Competition Commission's allegations against them are based on inferences and it has not provided evidence of collusion. The commission The commission alleges a single overarching conspiracy from 2007 until at least September 2013, possibly continuing after traders lost access to chat rooms on news and information company Bloomberg's platform that had been used to coordinate trades. The matter has gone back and forth between the commission, the Competition Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court since 2017. In 2023 the tribunal ruled that the commission had jurisdiction over foreign banks, but the appeal court Domestic banks argue the commission lacks sufficient evidence, while foreign banks contend that it has no jurisdiction over them. The banks named in the case are Standard Bank, Nedbank, FirstRand, Citigroup, Nomura, Investec, JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, Commerzbank, Standard New York Securities, Macquarie Bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, ANZ, Standard Chartered and Absa. Barclays and Absa applied for leniency from the commission, while Citibank and Standard Chartered Lawyers representing Nedbank said the commission's case against it is 'narrow' and 'skeletal' and based on news and media company Reuters ' public trading platform, which shows the price a bank is willing to buy or sell currencies. The Nedbank lawyers said the commission did not place the bank in any of the chatrooms where price manipulation is alleged to have occurred. Lawyers representing Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) challenged the commission's jurisdiction to prosecute it and said there was no prospect of success. Nor does it raise any constitutional principle, they said, adding that the commission had added any bank to which there was some reference in the chats to the case. The commission has argued that it is the only institution capable of prosecuting rand manipulation, whether it occurs in New York, London or Johannesburg. On Tuesday, its lawyer, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, told the court that it is almost impossible to prosecute cartels because they employ procedural objections as legal delays for years. Ngcukaitobi described the case as a 'quintessential example of a transnational cartel' and an attack on South Africa's sovereignty. He argued that price manipulation has a permanent effect, distorting the value of imports and weakening economic stability. French based BNP Paribas has argued that the commission's case is vague and contradictory because it cannot state when the alleged conspiracy ended. 'The allegations are vague and embarrassing because, simultaneously, the commission alleges the end of a single overarching conspiracy in 2007; that it ended 'after September 2013'; that they do not know when the single overarching is ongoing or has ceased,' BNP said in its affidavit. It said this lack of clarity is critical to whether collusion occurred and has prejudiced the bank, causing reputational harm. It contends the commission cannot sustain a case of single overarching conspiracy in law. In its affidavit to the Constitutional Court, the commission said BNP is implicated through its former employee, Jason Katz, who was 'The burden is on BNP to explain its employee's conduct,' the commission said. 'Having failed to persuade the tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court, BNP now approaches this court in another attempt to obstruct and delay the inevitable consequences of its anti-competitive conduct.' The commission said it is entitled to plead that it does not know on what date each respondent ceased to participate if its participation had indeed ceased. Furthermore, the commission said the information concerning whether the prohibited conduct is ongoing, is exclusively in the bank's knowledge. It is not for the commission to provide evidence that the conspiracy has ceased The commission maintains that legal technicalities should be dealt with during the trial. It says the banks' coordinated behaviour, both on behalf of clients and for their own accounts, provides sufficient proof of collusion. The banks maintain the commission has not put forward primary facts of rand manipulation but only allegations ceased on market trends.
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Nedbank denies allegations of rand manipulation by Competition Commission
The Constitutional Court in Johannesburg heard arguments by various banks, including Nedbank, that it was not part of a conspiracy to manipulate the rand/US dollar. Image: Timothy Bernard / Independent Newspapers Due to the cryptic nature of the allegations against Nedbank by the Competition Commission that this bank was part of a conspiracy to manipulate the rand, Nedbank has no case to answer as there is not a shred of evidence regarding any wrongdoing against it. This is according to Advocate Anthony Gotz SC, who on Wednesday told the Constitutional Court that Nedbank should never have been added as a respondent in the Competition Commission's referral of the matter to the tribunal. This argument follows the Competition Commission's appeal following last year's judgment in which the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) cleared 13 banks - including Nedbank - from facing the music in a later trial regarding the rand/US dollar manipulation saga. Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, acting on behalf of the Competition Commission, on Monday told the Constitutional Court that there is enough evidence to establish a prima facie case that they were involved in the manipulation of the rand. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The Competition Commission, in its initial referral of the complaint to the Competition Tribunal, did not list Nedbank as one of the suspects. It, however, amended its referral in 2020 during which Nedbank was included as one of the alleged conspirators of the rigging of the rand. Gotz said in its application to join Nedbank, the commission pleaded a broad conspiracy against the bank, but the allegations were narrow. The allegations were based solely on the commission's assessment regarding trading data on the Reuters platform. This platform does not reflect trades - it's a public platform which simply indicates the prices at which traders are willing to buy and sell currency, Gotz said. According to him, the case against Nedbank is based on the commission's assessment of trading data over six years. 'This is not a case of Nedbank being a participant in any chatroom - in this respect Nedbank is different from the other respondents,' Gotz said. He argued that the allegations against Nedbank are skeletal and there are only a few instances which lasted minutes each on the Reuters platform, on which the commission is now relying. Gotz said these allegations are not made specifically against Nedbank, but against other banks that they had withheld quotes. This, he argued, is definitely not enough to establish that Nedbank was part of any conspiracy to rig the rand. He questioned how it could be suggested that this bank was part of an international cartel. Gotz also pointed out that the few instances the commission is relying on happened six months to a year apart. 'The commission cannot make allegations in the air. We accept that in cartel cases, it is difficult to identify each perpetrator, but this is not a licence for the commission to do what it has done,' he argued.
