(1)Whether, with reference to the judgment in the case The Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board v Fines 4 U (Pty) Ltd and Another in April 2017, in which it was found that the Road Traffic Infringement Agency did not comply with the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO), she will take steps to ensure that all officials in the AARTO process comply fully with the provisions of the specified legislation; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant particulars;
(2) what number of the representations dealing with technical defects and handed to the Road Traffic Infringement Agency have been implemented since the test phase in Johannesburg and Pretoria;
(3) whether, in light of the specified judgment, the Road Traffic Infringement Agency will take the specified representations under review, since it has been illegally dismissed; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the full relevant particulars and (b) whether reimbursement will be made to people from whom money was irregularly collected in this regard;
(4) What are the road accident statistics (a) on the road on which AARTO was implemented since the beginning of the test phase and (b) for each year since AARTO has been implemented up to the latest specified date for which information is available;
(5) (a)(i) why and (ii) in which manner AARTO will be implemented countrywide and (b) what (i) is the deadline and (ii) are the milestones in this regard?