Knysna Incident 2019

A short summary regarding the recent RGH incident in the Knysna area. A few months ago, Karin stopped at an RTMC roadblock. Initially the RTMC agents were instructed by their superior, traffic chief Oliphant, to charge Karin with fraud and arrest her, according to Oliphant’s order he himself issued a few years ago, in complete disregard of RGH’s recent case, judgement and not guilty verdict. Further also in breach of his own oath and mandate, which includes to uphold the RSA constitution act 108 of 1996, thus recognizing common law.

After Karin indicated to the RTMC agents that she is a common law traveller, she was informed by Oliphant, who was speaking through his agents, that “common law does not exist in South Africa”, which is obviously utter nonsense and a very poor strategy of defence or attack. If he would have said “common law does not exist in the Republic of South Africa”, it almost would have made sense, since RSA is desperate to eradicate anything common, customary and tribal law, before the people rediscover their almost forgotten freedom.

At this point, not only for Oliphant’s education, we insert a small compilation referencing common law within the RSA constitution act 108 of 1996 and the NRTA :

Common Law inside RSA acts

Knowing Oliphant from previous interactions, he is most likely to deny having said the above once confronted or under oath at court.

Due to the peaceful nature of the encounter the RTMC agents decided not to charge Karin with fraud, which warrants and immediate arrest, but rather charge her with the standard code violations, i.e. driving motor vehicle without licence, driving an unlicenced and unroadworthy vehicle, including a summons to visit the Knysna court on 26th June.

In the run-up to the court date Karin’s partner Lawrence, also an avid RGH member, contacted control prosecutor Engelbrecht, who showed very little interest in the matter, but said that the matter would be placed on the roll regardless.

On the day, Engelbrecht informed Karin that Hylton’s case does not constitute a precedent, nor did Jan’s case (not even enroll based on the verdict in Hylton’s case). The latter endorsed by Engelbrecht himself. Confirmation again, the RSA court grant themselves condonation whenever they seem fit or unfit. While at the court and waiting, Karin communicated with other court personnel and it became evident once again, that their main concern is the lack of revenue from RGH members and not road safety, but admittedly they are also unsure regarding any ‘legal’ status of RGH.

Apparently they are determined to move for trial and secure a conviction against Karin, which is exactly that, a conviction against Karin for NRTA code violation but not RGH itself.

The matter got postponed to 19th July 2019.


Read below some excerpts on stare decisis or ‘the doctrine of precedents’, especially in connection to section 39 (2) of the bill of rights. This is the very section UZA cited on many occasion with regards to common, customary and tribal law, how it is totally ignored and neglected in favour of  foreign statutory roman-dutch law, merely serving as an alibi, making people believe common, customary and tribal law are well and alive.

Doctrine of Precedent in South Africa

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *