The express penalty scheme for traffic offences is premature

Apr 23, 2003

I recently read in Inspector Kamya’s column in The New Vision that the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications had issued a Statutory Instrument S.1.

I recently read in Inspector Kamya’s column in The New Vision that the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications had issued a Statutory Instrument S.1. No. 68 of 2002 establishing the Express Penalty Scheme for Road Traffic Offenders Regulations, scheduled to come into force this month.

Although the scheme is an excellent idea, its coming into force next month would be, with all due respect, premature, providing us with a raw deal and a half-hearted action. If this scheme has to serve its useful purpose, we need to be thorough while introducing it. I believe it falls short for the following reasons:

l The scheme, though conceived many months ago, no public education has been held to inform us of how the scheme is going to work. Here in Uganda we tend to take things for granted. The Traffic Police should have been on the roads stopping taxies randomly, warning the excess passengers that they could get a sh20,000 fine in the near future.

  • The entire schedule should have been publicised in the media to inform the public

  • The scheme is not going to be applied in isolation of the main Traffic and Road Safety Act. No 15 of 1998, yet the relevant sections relating to this scheme i.e. sections 107 to 109, are in suspension pending revision of the fines and penalties schedule.

    The express fines scheme is coming into force this month, before the new ones are made, publicised and implemented. It appears as if this schedule is going to replace the one of 1998, yet it should be just complementary. We were told it was argued that the original fines and penalties were excessive in character and extremely punitive in application.

    They were considered an expression of anger because of the increasing fatality of road traffic accidents but were in most cases unrealistic, unaffordable and ultimately unimplementable.

    The dilemma is supposing the Express Fines Scheme were to be implemented in its present form, it will mean a culprit of any repeated traffic offense will be subject to the same recurring litanised fines scheme falling under this schedule. This will render the whole exercise a total mockery with habitual traffic offenders escaping with a mere sh40,000 fine — maximum.

    In the main act, the fines and penalties are progressive. They lead to more severe penalties for repeated offences and fines at times combining them with either imprisonment, withdrawing the driving permit for a given period or cancellation.

    The flat fines as prescribed by Kamya fall far too short of an educative and deterrent penalty which should be in-built, making the culprit feel the pinch while serving the purpose of improving and promoting road safety. I wish the National Road Safety Council had been consulted on this.

  • believe that the following must be done first in order to ensure that the introduction of the new scheme goes smoothly:

  • The Minister, Works, Housing and Communications, should either restore the suspended sections of the Traffic and Road Safety Act no: 15 section 107 to 109, or introduce a new one which should be made public through the media so that everyone is informed. There should be a public education period provided.

  • He should issue the necessary statutory instruments to implement and Operationalise the TRSA 1998 in its entirety.

  • Offences which are not covered by the Act should be identified with a view of making the attendant regulations.
    (i) Consultations should be made with stakeholders, so that they are involved.
    (ii) The National Road Safety Council should be brought on board, because of their role.

  • The Commissioner Regulations and his committee should draw-up the regulations and passing through the procedure present them to the draftsmen in the Attorney Generals chambers for legal drafting etc. Some of the offences to be included are:

    (i) Not using safety belts
    (ii) Use of mobile phones while driving
    (iii) Driving under the influence of alcohol: The measurement of blood alcohol levels and the use of breathalizers apply here
    (iv) Speeding: The use of speed detecting devices should begin.

    Generally speaking, this exercise would involve the following:
    (a) Drafting the regulations, establishing the offences, fines and other penalties.
    (b) Having the regulations gazetted
    (c) Issuance of Statutory Instrument(s) authorising implementation
    (d) Public education
    (e) Enforcement
    In order for this scheme to work efficiently, the computerised driving permit must be in place so that for any finable offence, a coded and score entry is made in the provided space on the permit.

    This endorsement on the computerised driving permit (license) provides the Traffic Police and the Traffic Courts with an instant track record of any driver whose conduct has defaulted but has hitherto remained elusive of being convicted of a severe penalty.

    If this scheme were to be hurriedly introduced and implemented, we would forfeit all that information keeping blatant bad and dangerous drivers on our roads, increasing the risk of road traffic accidents. Besides the traffic Police, the computing staff, the magistrates and the judges would require a training period so that they are able to enter, read and interpret codes and scores and apply them in their operations.

    This article is not intended to be an affront but a humble contribution towards road safety.

    John Kintu
    Kampala
  • (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});