The battle between the South African National Road Agency Limited (SANRAL) and the Chairpersons Association (CA) about road signage displaying the name Makhado, instead of Louis Trichardt, is heating up.

In a letter dated July 13 this year, the CA gave SANRAL eight weeks to correct all road signs displaying the name Makhado and threatened the agency with court action, should they fail to comply. On July 22, SANRAL CEO Mr Nazir Alli responded to the CA´s letter, giving reasons why all road signs have not yet been corrected. CA chairperson, Mr André Naudé, however, rejected SANRAL´s reasons, stating that it was nothing more than an "excuse" which "is not good enough anymore." The CA subsequently repeated their threat of court action if SANRAL does not comply within 60 days.

In his response, Alli sent a list of sign boards that have already been changed from Makhado to Louis Trichardt. These included 63 new overlays and 29 new signs on the N1, five overlays and one new sign on the R521/1 and 11 overlays on the R523/1.

Alli denied the allegation by the CA that SANRAL had erected new sign boards with the name Makhado.

“We also did not erect any new signs that still reflect the name Makhado, and we believe such signs may have been erected by other road authorities on roads not under our jurisdiction,” Alli stated.

The long list of new overlays and signs provided by SANRAL apparently did not impress the CA.

“The fact that you have not changed all the names since the court decision dated 27 March 2007, is clear proof that you are not in compliance with the court’s decision.” The CA raised the question as to why sign boards had been changed to Makhado even before the matter was finalised in court.

“But in this instance, after the court decision, it is taking you more than three years to be in compliance with the court’s decision,” Naudé said.

As for signs still indicating Makhado, SANRAL said that they would replace the signs as soon as projects started on such roads. That reaffirmed their position as set out in a previous letter of May 2009.

The CA fired back.

“Your excuse that you will only replace the sign boards as your project starts on such roads is not good enough anymore after three years. We have given you a clear time frame. If you are not in compliance with the time frames, then it will be your right to explain to the court or an appropriate forum why you are not complying … and why it is taking you more than three years after various letters of demand…”

SANRAL strongly objected to the CA’s contention that they are not in compliance with the court order or regard themselves above the law.

The CA said that if they applied for enforcement of the court order, they would obtain a special punitive cost order against SANRAL as well as the individual employees who were responsible for the delay in complying with the court order.