The board of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) was taken to the cleaners yesterday as Songezo Zibi, the chairperson of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), tore into its failures and flaws.
What was meant to be a feedback session on the Special Investigation Unit’s investigation turned into a brutal takedown, with the RAF board and executives left scrambling.
Speaking at the meeting on 28 May, Zibi said the board was failing.
“Vacancies in critical positions, litigation without a head of legal, people in positions who are still trying to find their feet, lawyers who rock up in court to try and overturn a matter and they don’t argue it,” he said.
Zibi warned the situation has reached a breaking point.
“It’s making a mockery of this Parliament and oversight.”
The RAF is primarily funded through the RAF fuel levy – a charge added to every litre of fuel sold. In the Budget delivered on 21 May, the government announced that the general fuel levy would increase on 4 June. Petrol will go up by 16 cents, from R3.85 to R4.01 per litre, and diesel by 15 cents, from R3.70 to R3.85 per litre.
Addressing the RAF board yesterday, Zibi made it clear the committee expects concrete action in the Fund’s upcoming submissions.
“In their submissions next week, it [the board] needs to tell this committee what precisely they are doing to remedy the situation,” Zibi said. “We can’t simultaneously have South Africans toyi-toying against the fuel levy, and this is the train wreck that you are listening to here, and people get paid to sit on the board.”
Vacancies in critical positions
Although the announcement that RAF chief executive Collins Letsoalo has been placed on special leave pending the outcome of the SIU investigation dominated yesterday’s committee meeting, it wasn’t the only shocker.
Phathutshedzo Lukhwareni, appointed as acting CEO in Letsoalo’s absence, referred to Mampe Kumalo as the RAF’s “head of legal”. But under questioning, it emerged that Kumalo does not hold a law degree and is, in fact, the fund’s chief governance officer.
Pressed further, Kumalo said the position of head of legal has been vacant for two-and-a-half years. She explained that although the legal team includes three senior legal officers, none has been considered suitable to fill the role.
“And my seniors are still new in their positions, and therefore they did not. They said they still need to find, find their feet within the RAF to be able to then see if they’ll be fit for the positions,” she said.
She said the Fund relied on a corporate panel of attorneys for legal counsel.
Zibi did not hold back in his response.
“I’m going to make a conclusion at this point. The Road Accident Fund, whose work is heavily reliant on the court system, and the amount of money that leaves the door is reliant on the court system does not have a head of legal and your chief executive goes all over the country, holding press conferences complaining about lawyers when he does not have in his exco, the person who should advise the Road Accident Fund accordingly.
“That’s the picture that we have. It’s like breaking something and then complaining that it doesn’t work.”
Zibi added that, to his knowledge, the RAF also lacks a chief claims officer – one of the fund’s most crucial roles.
Kumalo confirmed that this position, too, has been vacant for more than two years.
Ongoing litigation against AGSA
Zibi lambasted RAF’s ongoing legal battle with the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) and what he called its “irresponsible” disregard for court rulings and fiscal accountability.
The dispute with the AGSA dates back to 2021, when the RAF ditched the Generally Recognised Accounting Practice (GRAP) framework in favour of IPSAS 42 – a shift that slashed its stated liabilities from R327 billion to just R34bn. The AGSA refused to accept the change, issuing a disclaimer audit opinion due to non-compliance with accounting standards and inadequate records.
The RAF challenged the audit finding, but the Gauteng High Court dismissed its application, noting that the change had not been approved by the Accounting Standards Board. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld that ruling in both September 2024 and April 2025, denying the RAF’s bid to appeal.
Despite losing in court multiple times, the RAF continues to use IPSAS 42 in its financials – a move Zibi said threatens Parliament’s fiscal credibility.
“What is submitted to this Parliament is a Budget by the Minister of Finance, which is contradicted by only one institution, and it’s the Road Accident Fund in respect of its liabilities,” he said.
He criticised the RAF’s approach to litigation: “Because the Road Accident Fund, on the guidance of no head of legal, has decided to litigate and proceed to do its own thing. If you appeal a decision, you comply until the court sets it aside. The RAF does it differently. It does its own thing anyway, even though it has failed repeatedly in court.”
Zibi questioned RAF board chairperson Lorraine Francois on whether the board has sought independent legal advice or merely followed counsel sourced by management. Francois confirmed the board has relied on advice from two senior counsel over the course of the matter.
Asked whether the board obtained its own independent legal opinion or simply accepted what management provided, Francois said they allow management to go through the process and appoint on their behalf.
Zibi pressed further, suggesting management had “shopped around” for legal opinions that aligned with their stance. “Do you know for certain if what was passed on to you as the board was the only advice sought by management?”
Francois acknowledged the concern. “I got your point, and I’ve raised that matter in the last discussion – that we need to get somebody different to give us a different view on the matter,” she said. “I’ve also raised the fact that the losses in courts actually point out to the deficiencies of the lawyers that are representing us in this matter.”
Still, she maintained the board’s reliance on management’s appointments, arguing that familiarity with RAF’s complex issues is key. She said they were told it’s better to bring someone who has the history, because they understand the complexities of the matters.
“RAF is not a simple and straightforward organisation, and the accounting issues are even more complex. So that has been the rationale behind it.”
Default judgements
In a September 2024 update to Parliament, the SIU flagged the cancellation of a contract with a panel of attorneys, which had handled the RAF’s court disputes. The termination, allegedly done without a contingency plan, has coincided with a surge in costly default judgments against the Fund.
Yesterday, Zibi said the last time RAF officials appeared before the committee, he raised concerns about the volume of RAF-related cases clogging the Gauteng High Court.
“Judge Sutherland has said they are responsible for 56% of the backlog, such that if you enrol a matter today, it will be heard in 2029, 2030,” he said.
He also questioned the RAF’s claim that default judgments were “under control”.
Zibi referred to a 20 May court ruling where the RAF tried to have a R6-million default judgment rescinded – only to send an attorney who told the judge she wasn’t there to argue, just observe.
“In the week of 5 May, [the judge] gave default judgments to the tune of R25m,” Zibi said. “Other judges in the same court, and we’re talking about one division, were similarly situated to the tune of R50m. Does that sound like an environment where these default claims are under control to you?”
“Definitely not,” replied Francois.
She said the board would probe recent decisions, particularly because they had been told the state attorney model replacing the panel was “the most cost-effective”.
“We were given the impression that these people are briefed appropriately, and they have the experience to deal with the matter,” she said. “So, we were not given the sense that these are not even able to present the RAF appropriately.”
The mistake came when 1. the panel attorneys were replaced by the State Attorneys who did not have the capacity or knowledge to deal with it. 2. The regualations that he introduced, that the courts on various occasions found is illegal yet he refused to adhere to. 3. There is no seperation of the merits and qauntum. The merits can be settled between the parties as the majority are passengers, yet you have to present the merits and the medical reports at submission and 3 years later all the reports has to be updated as they have become stale, 4. When a default was taken against the RAF the panel attorneys was held liable for the costs and had to do a report to the RAF and explain why the matter ended up in the Default Court.
The problem with RAF is that it is working contrary to its mandate. The current CEO lost focused from the beginning. His focus has been directed at fighting and eliminating the attorneys that represent the claimant.As a result he lost the focus and then claims backlog became the order of the day. Many claimant files are ready for settlement. However those matters remained in RAF shelves. Amongst the reasons for the above is that the CEO has managed to brainwash and instill to both employees and management the so-called ” anti-lawyers attitudes “. The instilled attitudes has become the reason why the RAF is failing to settle matters directly and without resorting to litigation. Majority of matters are flagged with notes that reflects trials that will take place three to four years to come, despite such matters having all documents necessary to settle the matters internally.
The other problem is that the CEO does not listen to anyone. He does not listen to Parliament, his board , his executives, management and the employees. He does not take any advice from anyone. He is very allergic to lawyers, except those who are fighting his courses at the expense of the taxpayers hard earned money.
The current arrangement is a complete disaster. Attorneys from the State Attorney office are probably 6 or 7+ in number and they’re expected to handle matters in a day that were being handled by more than 10 law firms. During the ‘panel’ days you wouldn’t find so many exorbitant amounts being paid because panel Attorneys also briefed their own experts and should they commit schoolboy errors they were being held to account.
Bring back the panel Attorneys so that the ‘rot’ can stop.
The Board and RAF management does not have a clue how to fulfill their mandate, OR just doesn’t care seeing that they receive honorarium’s or salaries for the lack of, or poor work done.