Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) has sharpened the spotlight on the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, pressing the Department of Transport on whether the long-stalled legislation can – or should – be applied retrospectively to deal with the Road Accident Fund’s vast legacy liabilities.
The issue surfaced during SCOPA’s engagement with the Ministry of Transport on 4 February as part of its review of executive and ministerial oversight over the past five years. Although the department provided an update on the status of the RABS Bill, it was committee members’ concern about what happens to existing RAF Act claims that dominated the discussion.
SCOPA chairperson Songezo Zibi (pictured) put the question bluntly: when the RABS Act comes into force, what happens to claims lodged under the current RAF Act – do they fall away, or does the new law direct how they must be dealt with?
A non-retrospective law, a long-term problem
The acting director-general of Transport, Mokonyama Mathabatha, explained that, as a general legal principle, legislation is not retrospective unless this is explicitly provided for. Applying a new law to past transactions raises risks because rights would already have accrued under the existing framework, and claims may have been prepared or concluded using forms and processes informed by the RAF Act.
The practical implication, he said, is that the government would likely have to draw a line: the RABS would apply going forward, while the existing “book” of RAF Act claims would continue to be dealt with separately under the old legislation.
That response triggered a sharper fiscal warning from Zibi, who framed the issue through the lens of National Treasury.
“Because I am asking this, putting myself in the shoes of the finance minister and the DG of the Treasury, which is, you know, if the law is not retrospective, it doesn’t solve the problem for the next 15 years. That’s the bottom line, but it’s a problem for all of us to debate and solve,” he said.
As pointed out by Zibi, a non-retrospective RABS Bill may reform the system for future claimants, but it leaves the RAF’s accumulated liabilities largely intact for more than a decade.
Pressure to rethink retrospectivity
Several SCOPA members pushed back against the idea that retrospectivity should be dismissed on legal grounds alone, arguing that without it, the reform risks being hollow.
Committee members argued that legal teams should not simply conclude that retrospectivity is impossible but should explore how the Bill could be structured to withstand constitutional challenge. One line of argument raised during the meeting was that if there is sufficient “fair warning” about how the system will change, this could later be relied on in court to justify retrospective application.
Retrospectivity was also linked to proposals to move away from large once-off lump-sum payments towards annuity or staggered payments. Committee members argued that paying benefits over time, rather than upfront, could reduce the RAF’s immediate financial exposure while still honouring claims.
Mathabatha acknowledged that the issue of retrospectivity is unlikely to go away. Although cautioning that the courts are sensitive to legal certainty and vested rights, he said it was not necessarily impossible but would almost certainly invite prolonged litigation.
The department’s view, he indicated, is that even under a reformed system, the key question will remain how the scheme is funded. Introducing annuity-type payments, as proposed in the RABS framework, could help to ease pressure on the fund, but would not make the scheme cheap.
Why RABS is back on the table
The renewed focus on the RABS Bill follows the quiet abandonment of the RAF Amendment Bill, which had been championed by the RAF board and its now-suspended chief executive, Collins Letsoalo.
In June 2025, Deputy Transport Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa told Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Transport that the amendment route had been halted, and the long-rejected RABS Bill would instead be revived as part of broader legislative reform at the RAF.
Read: Government revives rejected Bill to fix Road Accident Fund
First released in 2017, the RABS Bill proposed replacing the fault-based RAF system with a no-fault social insurance scheme, built around structured and defined benefits. Under this model, compensation would no longer depend on proving negligence, but on participation in a social security framework recognising that all road users are exposed to the risk of injury or death.
The department has repeatedly argued that the no-fault approach is central to curbing litigation, standardising benefits, and reducing the adversarial nature of the current system, which it says drives up legal costs and administrative inefficiency.
However, this shift has long been controversial. Critics argue that removing fault strips victims of accountability mechanisms and eliminates the right to sue negligent drivers, while also excluding compensation for pain, suffering, and disfigurement.
Concerns were also raised about capped benefits, exclusions affecting informal workers, age limits, and restrictions on non-citizens, all of which were said to raise constitutional red flags. After fierce public opposition, the National Assembly voted against the Bill in 2020.
The RAF’s structural challenges
In its SCOPA presentation last week, the Department of Transport reiterated that the RAF’s current operating model has proved “ineffective, inefficient, and unsustainable”.
Despite the fuel levy reaching R2.18 per litre – its highest level in 12 years – the levy remains insufficient to cover the fund’s liabilities. High administrative costs, uncapped benefits, and an adversarial, fault-based litigation environment continue to undermine sustainability.
Among the key challenges identified were:
- The subjective “narrative test” used to determine general damages.
- An inequitable system that favours claimants with strong economic profiles.
- The cost and fraud risk associated with foreign claims, including difficulties verifying proof of life and injury severity.
- Heavy reliance on lump-sum payments, which create significant revenue risk.
The department said the RABS policy is intended to address these issues by introducing defined benefits within a no-fault framework, simplifying claims through direct access, reviewing foreign claims, and expanding the use of annuities for loss of income and loss of support.
Where the Bill stands now
According to the department, an updated draft RABS Bill has been developed and submitted to key departments for comment. An inter-departmental task team has been approved, and the draft Bill is before the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation for the completion of the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment System process, as well as the Office of the Chief State Law Adviser.
Given the time that has lapsed since the Bill was last before Cabinet, the department intends submitting it to Cabinet for noting before embarking on public consultations.
Looking beyond compensation
Hlengwa used the SCOPA platform to caution against viewing RABS as a “silver bullet”. Although acknowledging that the Bill seeks to entrench a no-fault system with defined benefits, curb litigation, and deal with leakages in the claims process, he emphasised that the RAF – and its successor – is ultimately reactive, responding only after accidents have occurred.
He argued that the real cost burden lies in the scale of road accidents themselves, with estimates placing the annual cost to the economy at between R205 billion and R260bn when healthcare, trauma response, and related impacts are taken into account.
For this reason, he said, the government is looking at the RAF and RABS within a broader road-safety ecosystem. This includes proposals to strengthen traffic law enforcement, amend the National Road Traffic Act to move towards zero alcohol tolerance, and address systemic issues such as foreign claims and revenue generation.
Part of the RABS mandate, he said, will be a stronger emphasis on road safety and prevention, alongside stabilising the finances of the compensation system.
