A report by the National Audit Office has lifted the lid on why the Local Enforcement System Agency has failed, much like the local wardens before it. It may also explain the lack of discipline on the roads and why irresponsible motorists appear to enjoy immunity.
In a nutshell, the agency does not have enough money to be run as it should, it is unable to hire the sort of personnel it really needs to function. Some of its present staff members are illiterate and lack appropriate skills, giving the agency a bad name, and it lacks a sufficient presence on the ground.
The government agency is responsible for the enforcement of traffic-related regulations. It also handles traffic management, sees to vehicle collisions and deals with certain ecological issues like littering and waste collection schedules.
In its earlier life, it served as the delegated regulatory authority in the sector and enforcement services were outsourced to a private company. The wardens officially moved to the agency in mid-2018, with the promise that both the educational and operative aspects of their work would be tweaked to bring them closer to the community.
When the agency was first set up in 2015, the then justice minister pompously portrayed it as the best thing that had ever happened to road traffic and motorists since the invention of the wheel. Such talk had, of course, been heard before. About eight years earlier, a number of local councils launched a campaign in which local wardens were supposed to educate motorists on traffic regulations.
However, little, if anything, happened and an effective enforcement system is still a must today as it was then. The auditor general’s observations should be thoroughly studied and his recommendations implemented if things are to get any better. Given the rising number of vehicles and the young, inexperienced cohort of drivers, the sooner that this is done the better.
Three main challenges need to be addressed first: funding, the right complement and adequate tools to monitor the situation on the ground effectively.
As no money is allocated by the government, the agency has to depend on the funds generated through contraventions issued. So, rather, than incentivising it to educate motorists, violating traffic regulations pays for the agency and literally so in its case.
Therefore, the government should lose no time in putting taxpayers’ money where its mouth is. If adequately administered, such funds would not only contribute to a sound and robust enforcement system but also to the much-vaunted education campaign.
But, of course, nobody should expect motorists to be educated by the agency’s poorly educated community officers. Thus, it must determine how many community officers it requires, find out why exactly it is having problems recruiting both in terms of quality and quantity and, then, move on to implement a well drawn-up action plan. A reasonable financial allocation by the government, as mentioned, should help.
Finally, it has to be ensured that the agency has all the tools – in addition to human resources – that it requires to do its job, whether that means an information system, communications equipment, CCTV and speed cameras, electronic devices, the necessary ancillary technology and whatnot.
The fact that, after so many years, the agency is still facing serious difficulties should not discourage it from looking ahead. As the national audit office remarked, the Local Enforcement System Agency is an entity with the potential to change. The auditor general’s report can be its GPS as it charts its way forward to make inroads in its dual task of enforcement and education.