South Africa’s new e-hailing laws will harm vulnerable drivers, while the international ride-hailing companies continue to operate unabated.
This is the opinion of the South African e-hailing association (Saeha), which recently spoke to Newsday about its concerns with the country’s new laws.
“While these burdensome regulatory requirements target individual operators, the government has overlooked addressing more critical systemic issues,” said Trevor Mathebula, Deputy Secretary of the association.
“This is, namely, the role and accountability of international app platforms like Uber and Bolt.”
The Department of Transport (DoT) recently gazetted the amended National Land Transport Amendment Act, which it claims will officially recognize e-hailing.
It explained that e-hailing services have been treated with hostility by other transport services, who see it as an illegal operation.
Under the new act, e-hailing drivers must have operating licences to “to ensure services remain authorised and safe.”
It also sets new rules for the quality and security of vehicles, including a requirement where drivers must now brand their cars to indicate they are used for e-hailing.
This particular requirement has been flagged by the association, which argues will expose drivers to threats of violence.
“Requiring drivers to brand their vehicles openly exposes them to undue risk by making them easier targets for criminals and rival operators,” said Mathebula.
These concerns are in reference to the frequent attacks on e-hailing drivers committed by minibus taxi operators, who see them as a threat to their business.
One of the most recent high-profile incidents occurred in August 2025 when an e-hailing driver was killed in his vehicle at Mopanya Mall in Soweto.
“The measure may inadvertently endanger lives rather than protect them,” Mathebula said.
Panic buttons must also be installed at the driver’s expense, and e-hailing operators will be confined to specific geographic zones.
When picking up passengers, drivers will be required to drive from point A to point B and then return to point A before picking up further passengers.
Meanwhile, the department’s rules for app developers are more lax, said Mathebula.
App developers who are caught allowing drivers to use their apps without an operating licence risk a fine of R100,000 or two years in jail.
All apps must be registered with regulators, but Mathebula argues that this will do little to influence international companies like Bolt and Uber.
Uber recently stated that it is “assessing the requirements of the new legislation and remain committed to working with government and industry partners to support a smooth transition.”
“Our focus remains on ensuring drivers can earn sustainably, while maintaining strong safety and compliance standards and delivering a seamless experience for riders.”
A tough way to make a living
Many e-hailing drivers struggle to earn a living, as the apps typically charge an average of R5 per kilometre.
Drivers rarely see a good return and often earn below minimum wage.
In extreme case, drivers are unable to afford housing and sleep in the cars they rent.
“Uber and Bolt’s operations in South Africa were, from the start, built on the backs of illegal migrant workers who accepted these conditions simply to survive and put food on the table,” said Mathebula.
“Sadly, South Africa’s laws were not designed with these realities in mind.”
E-hailing drivers are classified as independent contractors, not employees, which means they are not entitled to labour law employee protections.
“If we have issues, who must we go to? The owners of this app are in Europe or somewhere. They don’t care about us, so we just keep quiet so we continue to have an income” one driver told Newsday.
In February, News24 revealed that Uber is one of the largest job creators in South Africa, with roughly 52,000 drivers on its network.
In comparison, Woolworths hires around 38,000 individuals while Spar has just over 11,000.
Bolt is another major employer, as it disclosed in 2023 that it had more than 40,000 drivers.
While these apps generate billions of rand every year, the companies have never fully disclosed the scale of their financial outflows.
Mathebula said the corporate structure of these apps is concerning; for example, payments made on the Uber app are routed through a Dutch entity, Uber BV, which facilitates the transfer of money out of South Africa.
As a tax workaround, profits are then kept artificially low as the Dutch holding company pays the Singapore-based parent company for a EUR16 billion loan.
Uber’s tax strategies are legal under international tax frameworks, though many have argued that they exploit loopholes that need to be closed.
Loading ...
