KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Transport and Human Settlement Siboniso Duma’s call for a six-year jail sentence for drinking and driving has been met with mixed reactions.
Duma said the fine of between R2,000 and R120,000 is not enough to deter drunk driving.
“We must aim for a prison sentence in order to end this scourge,” he said.
Duma argues that South Africa has the highest number of alcohol-related road traffic deaths at 57.5%.
“We have orphans, widows, and families that have been destroyed as a result of one drunkard. We don’t want KZN to contribute to the national figure of fatalities as a result of one drunk person,” Duma said.
He added that law enforcement officers are mandated to arrest motorists who drive while they are drunk and send them to jail.
“We will work with the National Prosecuting Authority in order to ensure a successful prosecution and conviction of a prison sentence of six years. The fine of between R2000 and R120,000 is not enough. We must aim for a prison sentence in order to end this scourge,” Duma said.
He added that they have ongoing discussions on many matters with magistrates and prosecutors, including on Ummemezi Wezimoto Anti Crime Software.
“With a six-year sentence, we will be engaging more, including civil society. We believe that this is a societal issue that must be addressed by all. Religious leaders have supported our Road Safety Prayer when we engaged them during the Inter-Faith Prayer held in Mandeni. We will be engaging with the liquor industry and many other key stakeholders,” Duma said.
Eleanor Mavimbela, spokesperson for the Automobile Association of South Africa (AA), said the AA acknowledges MEC Duma’s commitment to enhancing road safety by proposing stricter penalties for drunk driving.
“We recognise the intent to deter such behaviour. The effectiveness of the proposed sentence should be carefully evaluated in the context of the intended outcome, existing laws and enforcement capacity. It’s crucial to ensure that any legislative changes are not drafted in isolation and fully account for the desired deterrent effect,” Mavimbela said.
She added that while harsher penalties can serve as a deterrent, their success largely depends on consistent and effective enforcement.
“Without a robust system to ensure that offenders are apprehended and prosecuted, the threat of severe punishment may not significantly impact driver behaviour. A greater impact is achieved when penalties are combined with consistent enforcement, public education, and proactive policing. Therefore, while the AA supports strong consequences for drunk driving, we advocate for a balanced and evidence-based approach,” she explained.
Mavimbela added that the AA believes that a multi-faceted approach is essential, which includes increased proactive law enforcement, comprehensive driver education and awareness campaigns, support for alcohol reduction programmes, and rehabilitation where necessary.
“Addressing drunk driving is not solely about enforcement, it requires building a culture of accountability and road safety through education and community engagement. The AA is committed to working collaboratively with government entities, including the Department of Transport, to develop comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of drunk driving. This includes contributing to policy development, supporting public awareness campaigns, advocating for improved road safety infrastructure, and promoting a responsible driving culture,” she stated.
The AA is now advocating for a 0% alcohol limit for all drivers, reinforcing the message that there is no safe level of drinking and driving. This shift aligns with our commitment to reducing road fatalities and promoting a culture of zero tolerance for impaired driving. We believe that this approach will help reduce ambiguity and support safer, more responsible road use, said Mavimbela.
National Road Traffic Amendment Act 8 of 2024, which was signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa in December 2024, allows for fines ranging from R2,000 to R120,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to six years for drunk driving.
In South Africa, motorists are permitted to drive with a blood alcohol level not exceeding 0.05g per 100ml of blood, with a lower limit of 0.02g for professional drivers. The proposal to criminalise driving with any trace of alcohol was rejected by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Transport.
In a recent statement, DA KwaZulu-Natal Spokesperson on Transport, Riona Gokool, welcomed Duma’s announcement that his department will clamp down hard on drunk drivers.
“Driving under the influence is not a mistake—it is a choice. And it is a choice that puts lives at risk. This new measure is not about punishment – it is about prevention and protection. We urge drivers to make responsible decisions behind the wheel.
“It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that our roads are safe for everyone. This means holding individuals accountable for their actions and implementing laws that act as effective deterrents. Stricter penalties, increased enforcement, and enhanced education efforts are necessary steps in reducing these tragic incidents,” Gokool said.
Advocate Mthunzi Mhaga, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority, said, “At the moment, NPA is not considering such a mandatory sentence although the concerns raised by the MEC are noted.”
Kgalalelo Masibi, spokesperson for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, said the Department has not been approached with the MEC’s full proposal or the legal rationale underpinning it.
“Any proposal of this nature would require thorough legal consideration and must be brought to our attention through the appropriate legislative or intergovernmental platforms.
“The imposition of mandatory custodial sentences, without the option of a fine, may result in increased pressure on the justice system. This includes longer court processes as cases may be less likely to settle without trial, thereby increasing court rolls. Additionally, correctional services could face a heightened burden due to the potential rise in the number of individuals serving longer custodial sentences,” Masibi said.
She added that the Department currently does not have data to support the effectiveness of a six-year minimum sentence in deterring drinking and driving compared to the existing sentencing framework.
“One of the key criticisms of mandatory minimum sentencing is its potential to limit judicial independence. Our legal framework recognises the importance of judicial officers exercising discretion to account for the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Where minimum sentences are prescribed in law, judicial officers may still consider whether compelling circumstances exist to justify a deviation from such sentences.
“The severity and consequences of drinking and driving offences can vary widely. A mandatory sentence that does not allow for case-by-case assessment may lead to outcomes that do not reflect the nature or seriousness of each individual offence. It remains important that courts weigh the evidence and circumstances presented before passing a sentence,” Masibi concluded.
undefined
