By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Bus operator Intercape has won another legal battle in its bid to force the authorities to protect its long-distance buses, bus drivers and passengers in parts of the Eastern Cape.
In a ruling on Tuesday, the Makhanda high court ordered transport minister Fikile Mbalula to work with Eastern Cape transport MEC Xolile Nqatha and the police to draw up a plan to stop the attacks and intimidation.
This comes after long-distance bus operator, Intercape, sought urgent relief from the Eastern Cape High Court in Makhanda, which would allow safe passage for its buses through the area.
Judge John Smith ruled that the earlier order of 30 September 2022 would remain enforceable notwithstanding the minister’s application for leave to appeal.
“The court judgment in respect of the minister’s application for leave to appeal is expected early in the New Year.”
Mbalula had sought leave to appeal an earlier order by the same court which had compelled him and the MEC for Transport in the Eastern Cape, to coordinate with the South African Police Service (Saps) to come up with an effective plan of action to stop violent attacks on long-distance coaches.
Judge Smith had found that Mbalula and the MEC had failed in their obligations to ensure the safety of bus drivers and passengers in the Eastern Cape.
Intercape has been under siege in recent months, allegedly from taxi operators in the Eastern Cape, with its buses being shot at or stoned.
To date, the towns of Ngcobo, Cofimvaba, Tsomo, Butterworth and Idutywa in the province are still considered no-go zones for Intercape despite pleas by the public to reopen these stops. Commuters are now forced to only make use of minibus taxis
He gave the respondents 20 days to come up with an effective plan of action.
Both the MEC and the Minister said the taxi associations had denied any involvement in the attacks, blaming rogue elements.
According to Intercape CEO Johann Ferreira, while the office of the MEC agreed to implement the order of the court, Mbalula “regrettably decided not to participate in the formulation of an action plan and rather focused his attention on challenging the court’s decision by lodging an application for leave to appeal”.
This compelled Intercape to again approach the High Court to seek a further order to compel the minister to act, said Ferreira.
Ferreira said: We were shocked that the minister preferred to be engaged in legal proceedings, rather than to use his powers to come to the assistance of the travelling public.
“We had pleaded with the minister to take part in the formulation of the action plan whilst the appeal process unfolded. He refused.”
“Intercape then sought the further court order to compel the minister to discharge his constitutional obligations whilst the appeal process was ongoing. The minister opposed the application, but on the eve of having to file his answering affidavit, he withdrew his opposition to the application,” said Ferreira.