After months of uncertainty, the controversial Road Accident Fund (RAF) Amendment Bill has been quietly abandoned – and the long-rejected Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill is back on the legislative agenda.
The RAF Amendment Bill, pushed by the RAF board and its now-suspended chief executive, Collins Letsoalo, has officially been halted. On 3 June, Deputy Transport Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa (pictured) broke the news to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Transport during a briefing on developments at the RAF.
“I have already advised the board that the ministry will be re-introducing the Road Accident Fund Benefit Scheme Bill and not proceeding with the Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill, as part of the broader legislative reforms which are required at RAF in order to push back on all the challenges that are there,” said Hlengwa.
Quoting Shakespeare’s Hamlet, he added: “It’s Horatio in Hamlet who speaks to all is rotten in the state of Denmark, and all is not well in RAF on a number of fronts, and it is precisely why I have scheduled a comprehensive board meeting for the 10th [of June] to engage with the entity on the issues all at hand.”
Hlengwa also hinted at possible ministerial intervention to address governance failures and ensure accountability:
“We are exploring the necessary options and legal instruments available for as part of the considerations of introducing ministerial intervention into the Road Accident Fund, where ministerial advisory process on the current issues and the previous issues, including but not limited to the governance challenges currently at play and for us to be properly explained, the due processes that have been followed in so far as recent decisions have taken place.”
RAF Amendment Bill ‘a threat to victims’ rights’
The now-abandoned RAF Amendment Bill, released for public comment in September 2023, proposed overhauling the RAF by shifting it from a compensation-based model to a social benefits scheme. It also controversially aimed to remove lawyers from the process altogether, with the RAF arguing this would simplify claims and empower victims to lodge claims directly.
But legal experts warned that the changes would significantly undermine the rights of road accident victims. Without legal support, injured drivers, passengers, and pedestrians would be left to navigate a complex and bureaucratic system alone.
Read: RAF amendments will severely curtail the rights of road accident victims, say experts
Read: RAF amendments ‘will result in higher medical scheme contributions’
Public backlash was immediate. More than 19 000 people submitted comments through the Dear South Africa platform, with the overwhelming majority opposing the Bill. Despite this, RAF executives told Parliament in May 2024 that legislative changes were still under discussion, and in April that same year, the Cabinet said amendments were “at an advanced stage”.
Then came Hlengwa’s announcement this week: the Amendment Bill is off the table.
Back from the dead: the RABS Bill
But the alternative now being revived – the RABS Bill – is no less controversial.
Released in 2017, the RABS Bill proposed a no-fault social insurance scheme that would replace common law claims with “structured and defined benefits”.
The Bill aimed to “provide for a social security scheme for the victims of road accidents; to establish the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Administrator to administer and implement the scheme; to provide a set of defined benefits on a no-fault basis to persons for bodily injury or death caused by or arising from road accidents; to exclude liability of certain persons otherwise liable for damages in terms of the common law; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”
The idea was to streamline claims and remove the need to prove fault – but this also meant stripping victims of the right to sue negligent drivers.
That vision quickly drew widespread criticism. Legal professionals, civil society organisations, medical experts, and opposition parties lined up to condemn the Bill.
A core concern was that removing the fault-based system meant negligent drivers would receive the same benefits as innocent victims – effectively absolving them of accountability. At the same time, victims would no longer be able to claim for pain, suffering, and disfigurement, as the RABS excluded all non-economic damages.
The Bill also introduced capped benefits. Loss of income, for example, would be limited to R280 000 a year. Unemployed individuals or those without formal proof of income – including taxi drivers and informal traders – would receive little to no compensation, because they would be deemed to have zero income.
Even more controversially, the RABS proposed denying benefits to anyone under 18 or over 60, and to non-South African citizens or those without permanent residency – raising constitutional questions.
Financially, critics argued that the RABS could cost the public more, not less. Projections at the time suggested that annual loss-of-support claims could balloon from R3 billion under the RAF to R21.6bn under the RABS. It was said that funding the scheme would likely require steep hikes to the fuel levy, directly affecting consumers.
Public opposition was fierce. During public hearings, the vast majority of submissions rejected the Bill. In 2020, after sustained pushback, the National Assembly voted against the Bill, with the Transport Committee recommending amending the RAF Act.
Now, nearly five years later, the RABS is being revived as the ministry’s solution to the RAF’s chronic dysfunction. And to borrow another line from Shakespeare – this time from The Tempest: “What’s past is prologue.”
