Intercape slams Transport Minister for continued lack of urgency over attacks  

13 November 2022 

Intercape on Friday 11 November slammed Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula for his continued failure to address the “life-threatening” situation affecting the long-distance coach industry in South Africa. 

In papers filed with the High Court in Makhanda in the Eastern Cape on Friday, Intercape point to Mbalula’s “ongoing disregard for the seriousness of the issues at hand which concern life-threatening and endemic acts of violence and intimidation”. 

This was contained in an affidavit by Intercape CEO Johann Ferreira in response to an earlier court order that the Minister of Transport and MEC for Transport in the Eastern Cape work with police to come up with a plan of action to secure the safety of Intercape coaches, passengers and employees. 

There have been over 150 recorded violent incidents, including shootings, stonings and acts of intimidation directed at Intercape and other long-distance operators by rogue taxi associations intent on forcing long-distance coach companies out of operating in certain regions and routes across South Africa. The Eastern Cape is the epicentre of this campaign of violence. 

In September, Intercape approached the High Court seeking an order to compel government to “take positive steps to ensure that reasonable and effective measures are in place to provide for the safety and security of long-distance bus drivers and passengers in the Eastern Cape”. 

The Court found in Intercape’s favour and gave the Minister and MEC 20 days to formulate a workable plan of action, this as the company is gearing up for the busy festive season when inter-provincial travel peaks. 

The MEC filed an action plan on 28 October. However, on the same day, Minister Mbalula gave notice of his intention to apply for leave to appeal the court order.  

In his responding affidavit filed on Friday, Ferreira said of the Minister’s response: “It was this very dereliction of duty which required Intercape to institute these proceedings in the first place. 

According to Ferreira, the “circumstances which rendered the matter urgent when it was launched persist to this day”. 

He argued that notwithstanding the Minister’s appeal, it was imperative that the crisis in the Eastern Cape be addressed without delay. 

Intercape further argued that the Minister’s application for leave to appeal is no reason for him not to have participated in the formulation of the action plan as he “remains duty-bound to participate in the formulation of the action plan by virtue of his constitutional and statutory obligations”. 

Intercape said it had called on the Minister to agree to the ongoing operation of the court order pending any appeal for which leave may be given. “Regrettably, the Minister has refused to give this consent.” 

Intercape concluded: “In the circumstances, in order for the crisis to be addressed with the requisite urgency, it is necessary for Intercape to advance the action plan with the MEC alone. While this is neither what the court order requires, nor the optimal way of addressing the ongoing violence and intimidation in the Eastern Cape, it is better than the alternative of there being no implementation of the court order at all.” 

In terms of the action plan as put forward by Eastern Cape Transport MEC, interventions were listed as ranging from immediate to medium and long-term. 

However, Intercape, while welcoming the submission of a plan, cast serious doubt over its effectiveness and noted that it contained no definitive timelines for implementation. 

“(The plan) suffers from a general lack of detail in relation to the intervention measures it sets out. Second, it does not specify concrete timelines for the implementation of each aspect of the plan, as required by the court order,” Intercape argued. 

The intervention measures specified in the plan “are inadequate to provide for the reasonable protection of Intercape’s drivers and passengers”, the company said.  

“Absent sufficient details of what is to be done, by whom it is to be done, where it is to be done, when it is to be done and how it is to be done, the plan cannot serve its intended purpose. Indeed, absent those details it is not a plan at all, but at most a statement of intent.” 

According to Intercape, the plan also failed to address the re-opening of the so-called “no-go zones” where Intercape has been banned from operating by local taxi associations. 

“The action plan identifies certain ‘hotspots’ where the violence against bus drivers and passengers is most severe. The hotspots have been identified as consisting of only five routes on which Intercape’s buses travel. The list does not include any of the towns or areas which Intercape described in its application papers as being so hostile and volatile as to render them ‘no-go zones’ which it is unable to operate in.” 

It described the omission of the no-go zones, in particular, Cofimvaba, Butterworth, Engcobo, Tshomo and Idutywa, from the action plan as “particularly concerning”, given that this had repeatedly been brought to the attention of the MEC and the Minister. 

The previous MEC had been found to have acted unlawfully in requiring Intercape to engage in negotiations with the minibus taxi industry and to suspend its services in certain areas, which included the no-go zones, pending the outcome of such negotiations. 

To date, and with the festive season approaching, Intercape remains unable to operate in these no-go zones. 

“The action plan’s failure to mention the no-go zones, let alone provide a single initiative to address them, means that it has failed to grapple with one of the main problems facing Intercape’s buses – that they are subjected to acts of vigilantism in the no-go zones.” 

Intercape further argued that the Minister and the MEC had not considered the exercising of certain powers such as envisioned under Section 91 of the National Land Transport Act which permits the use of “any extraordinary measures” such as the closure of taxi ranks or routes, or the suspension of operating permits. 

“It is Intercape’s submission that the exercise of the MEC’s section 91 powers is, at the very least, required to open up the no-gone zones in which Intercape is unable to operate. As matters presently stand, those directly or indirectly responsible for the acts of intimidation and violence are permitted to operate in these areas whilst those who are subjected to such acts of intimidation and violence are not. That is plainly untenable.” 

Intercape has asked the MEC to prepare a revised action plan which takes into account Intercape’s inputs and to present it for further consideration. 

Issued by Intercape, 13 November 2022