Testimony from the Law Society of SA (LSSA) revealed that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) has been rejecting valid claims under an unlawful directive, distorting its liability profile and forcing thousands of accident victims into costly litigation.
Appearing before the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) on Tuesday, LSSA president Nkosana Francois Mvundlela and a delegation of attorneys told MPs that the continued enforcement of board notice 271 and the revised RAF1 claim form had undermined compliance with the RAF Act and contributed directly to court backlogs stretching years into the future.
Mvundlela said the affidavit submitted to the committee was intended to provide a broad overview of the crisis at the RAF, including governance failures, irregular expenditure and the impact of adverse audit findings.
“The affidavit gives you the opportunity to zoom into those issues so that you are able to understand the perspective of the legal profession as represented by the LSSA,” he told MPs.
Committee members pressed the delegation on the effect of board notice 271, which requires claimants to submit extensive documentation upfront.
LSSA representatives explained that the RAF Act required only substantial compliance with section 24 at lodging, meaning basic information sufficient to establish that an accident occurred and that the claimant was injured.
They argued that the RAF’s insistence on full medical and actuarial reports at the outset had resulted in valid claims being rejected and not registered, thereby distorting the fund’s liability profile and forcing claimants into court.
Attorney Lindy Langner told the committee that many victims were unable to provide the required documentation immediately after an accident.
“The documentation to prove exactly what this person should be claiming is not necessarily available at the time of lodgement. Those victims are now excluded from claiming,” she said.
Members were reminded that courts had already struck down the notice as unlawful, with the Eastern Circuit local division in Maarman & Others v RAF dismissing the fund’s special pleas earlier this year.
The documentation to prove exactly what this person should be claiming is not necessarily available at the time of lodgement. Those victims are now excluded from claiming
— Lindy Langner, attorney
Scopa chairperson Songezo Zibi asked witnesses to clarify the distinction between merits and quantum in plain terms.
Mvundlela responded that “merits” referred to whether the claim was valid, while “quantum” relates to the extent of damages. He warned that RAF’s failure to make early determinations on merits had shifted the burden onto the courts, creating backlogs and unnecessary costs.
‘Contempt of court’
The committee also heard that the RAF had incurred significant wasteful expenditure by failing to comply with court orders and delaying payments.
The LSSA affidavit records at least 41 adverse judgments against the fund, many accompanied by punitive cost orders. Witnesses argued that the refusal to pay valid claims amounts to contempt of court and erodes the rule of law.
The RAF’s financial position was presented in its 2024/25 annual report to the portfolio committee on transport, showing claims expenditure of R46.9bn and outstanding liabilities of R40.4bn.
The auditor-general issued an adverse opinion for the third consecutive year, citing material misstatements in liabilities and noncompliance with the Public Finance Management Act.
Two material irregularities were identified, including altered vendor bank accounts in August 2024 that diverted payments to fictitious accounts.
Scopa has resolved to subpoena suspended RAF CEO Collins Letsoalo after repeated failures to secure his voluntary appearance. Zibi confirmed that a sheriff of the court was unable to serve the summons at the address provided, which appeared to be abandoned.
“Several witnesses have made averments that fairness demands Mr Letsoalo is given an opportunity to respond. His insights as CEO of the RAF will assist the committee to reach well-informed conclusions,” Zibi said.
The LSSA has recommended that a new RAF board be appointed, a qualified CEO be recruited, and skilled claims handlers be employed to make early determinations.
It further called for the reinstatement of panel attorneys or adequate state attorney capacity to represent the fund in litigation and for all claims rejected since 2022 under board notice 271 to be reconsidered in terms of the act.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.