RAF Plundered: MPs demand accountability amid R50bn scandal
IN A scathing exposé of the Road Accident Fund's (RAF) deep-rooted issues, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) last week revealed a shocking level of corruption and mismanagement within this critical state entity.
The revelations, presented by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), painted a distressing picture of an organisation that has failed in its mandate to compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents while simultaneously serving as a cash cow for unscrupulous officials and service providers.
Action SA's Alan Beesley minced no words when he declared: 'To me, that is absurd, and if that is the case, they should all be fired.' This was in response to the revelation that basic financial practices like periodic bank reconciliations — what he termed 'auditing 101' — were not being implemented despite the RAF's R50 billion annual turnover.
The frustration among committee members was palpable, with the MK Party's David Skosana criticising the use of tentative language in the SIU report: 'The use of terms such as 'allegedly' when referring to malpractice by individuals in the SIU report could be likened to 'gossip'.' He emphasised the need for factual information at this level of investigation.
Perhaps most concerning was the complete lack of vetting for RAF executives, as revealed by Scopa chairperson Songezo Zibi: 'Not a single executive at the RAF has been vetted yet. All of them are in process, from the chief executive on down.' This failure extended to the chief investment officer, who had previously faced multiple charges of malpractice at the City of Johannesburg, only for those charges to be abandoned upon his resignation.
The financial irregularities uncovered were staggering. The SIU reported that R141 million appeared to be an irregular payment lacking board approval. Particularly troubling was the cancellation of the panel of attorneys without a backup plan, potentially opening another channel for financial losses.
As the DA's Patrick Atkinson pointed out: 'The 'huge loss' suffered by the RAF due to not having a proper panel of attorneys in place was because of the actions of the Board.'
The ANC's Helen Neale-May highlighted a pervasive culture of non-compliance, noting that contract management had been 'blatantly flouted'. This was evident in various contracts under investigation, including:
Siyenza contract: R313 201 152.98
Office Building contract: R17 000 000
Fleet contract: R53 166 897
Cleaning contract: R12 117 260.80
SAP contract: R1 811 764
Office Furniture contract: R40 000 000
All these contracts showed signs of procurement irregularities and fruitless expenditure, with investigations complete and matters being finalised for referral to civil litigation.
The investigation revealed a shocking level of complicity from legal professionals. Duplicate payments to attorneys and sheriffs emerged as a major concern. While some law firms cooperated with the SIU, others had not honoured their Acknowledgement of Debt agreements. As the MK Party's Thalente Kubheka cautioned: 'Once the media run with it, they would 'lap it up' but some of the individuals mentioned in the report had not been given an opportunity to have a right of reply yet.'
The EFF's Chumani Matiwane added: 'It was 'quite concerning' to hear that bribes might have been paid in relation to work demonstrated in the allocation of work to a single law firm.' He also highlighted the manipulation of criteria to favour specific suppliers in the Siyenza Project.
Despite 20 matters already referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for prosecution consideration and 20 cases referred for disciplinary action, MPs expressed frustration at the slow pace of accountability. The DA's Farhat Essack captured the sentiment perfectly: 'There was 'absolutely' no accountability… The RAF was being 'plundered' and had become a cash cow for many individuals.'
The chairperson announced plans to seek legal advice on handling sensitive information, acknowledging concerns about reputational damage before the right of reply. However, he maintained that Scopa needed to hold dear their responsibility to ensure 'people with valid claims were paid fairly and that this was done in a timely manner'.
Adding to the list of concerns was the mention of ransomware attacks affecting the RAF's systems. While the SIU confirmed that no impact was detected in terms of the information needed for their investigation, Zibi emphasised the need for better cybersecurity measures: 'Ransomware should not be problematic, especially in institutions that process large sums of money like the RAF.'
Zibi also announced plans to engage with other government departments, including the Minister of State Security and the Minister of Communication and Digital Technologies, to address systemic issues affecting the RAF's operations. He further emphasised the need for improved vetting processes and better support from state agencies.
As the meeting adjourned, it was clear that the RAF faced a long road ahead in restoring public trust and implementing necessary reforms. The question remains whether these revelations will finally spur meaningful change or simply become another chapter in the fund's troubled history.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
12 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Minister Majodina says SA doesn't have a bulk water crisis, it's a supply problem
CAPE TOWN - Water and Sanitation Minister, Pemmy Majodina, said that the country does not have a bulk water crisis; rather, the supply of water is the problem. She said the billions of rand owed by municipalities to water boards could further exacerbate the provision of water. On Tuesday, Majodina appeared before Parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) for the first time since the start of this administration. The department said that while there's currently enough raw water supply to meet national demands, there are deficits at the local level. Majodina said that of the 144 water operators in the country, 105 of them are performing dismally, hence the water shortages. 'There's no crisis. When it comes to bulk water supply, we do have, but when it comes to access of water through the taps, there's a challenge.' She added there's only so much intervention the national department can make to ensure local authorities supply communities with water. 'That is why we are bringing reforms, that there must be separation of powers. We cannot be a service authority as well as a service provider.' By the end of April, municipalities owed water boards R25 billion, and Majodina said they were simply not honouring agreements to pay up.
Eyewitness News
12 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Road Accident Fund is wasting millions on 'chaotic' court cases
A judge of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has blasted the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for its 'chaotic approach to litigation' which has resulted in huge losses of public money. Courts are swamped with RAF cases, many of them without merit or with over-inflated claims for compensation. But 'the main problem lies with the RAF', said Judge Jan Pretorius in a recent judgment. The RAF does not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions. This results in 'default' judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds. 'In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,' said Judge Pretorius. In the week of 5 May, he had granted judgments against the fund of R25-million, and two other courts made default judgments in the same week which he said would have added R50-million to the RAF's liabilities. '[A]t the same time it pleads poverty.' He pointed out that in two matters with over-inflated claims, the RAF had not provided any expert reports to assist the court in assessing whether the claims were reasonable. The case before Judge Pretorius was an application by the RAF to rescind part of a previous order granted in favour of a road accident victim in 2021. The RAF had been ordered to pay past medical expenses of R223,000 and future loss of earnings of R6-million. The RAF's rescission application was made outside of the allowed timeframe. It gave no explanation for this. A more 'serious problem', Judge Pretorius said, was that the RAF made three untrue submissions to the court: that the 2021 hearing was heard virtually, that its defence had been previously struck out, and it had been barred from making submissions to the court. The record showed that the matter had been heard in open court, its defences were never struck out and the fund was represented at court by Ms N Xegwana from the office of the State Attorney. It had been placed on record that she was there to 'note the judgment' and had no instructions to make any submissions. Judge Pretorius said that because of these 'false averments', there was no legal basis to rescind the judgment. He had advised Ms N Kunene, who drafted the affidavit with the false claims, and Tonya de Beer, who deposed it, to appear before him. He was considering making them personally pay the costs of the litigation. Kunene then explained that she drafted the affidavit after receiving a memorandum from the RAF in which the alleged facts were spelled out. She did not know they were not true. She said De Beer was merely asked to sign the affidavit and she herself did not have knowledge of the facts of the matter. Judge Pretorius said this was 'highly unacceptable' and 'perturbing'. 'The result is that the respondent (the claimant) has been dragged to court to oppose an application based on falsehoods.' He said 'although I cannot express my disapproval of Ms Kunene and Ms de Beer's conduct strongly enough, I accept that they did not set out to mislead. The falsehoods originated from the fund, who misrepresented the facts to them.' Because of this he would not make a personal cost order against them. He ordered the RAF to pay costs on a punitive scale. 'This application has added to the applicant's financial burdens in that it will be required to settle the costs of a doomed application which resulted from its own inept management of its affairs.' LOSING BY DEFAULT 'The main problem lies with the [RAF and its chaotic approach to litigation, of which this application is but one example,' Judge Pretorius wrote. He said when the fund had terminated the services of its panel attorneys, there had been warnings that default judgments would result and inflated claims would not be properly scrutinised. This proved to be true and five years later, the RAF's system was largely still 'in chaos'. 'Many cases are heard every day in which the applicant is not represented at court or, if it is, instructions are not forthcoming.' Judge Pretorius said this was in spite of the fund being given special legal treatment, not extended to any other litigant — in that it was given multiple opportunities to comply with the rules of court. 'Notwithstanding the multiple warnings it has received, I still had 41 unopposed matters on the default roll in the week of 5 May 2025. In eight of these matters, the defence had been struck out and in 13, the fund was under bar [failing to file papers within the prescribed time]. In 20 cases the fund had not even noted an appearance to defend.' He said this failure by the fund to properly exercise its constitutional duties 'required urgent attention'. This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
Daily Maverick
14 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Road Accident Fund is wasting millions on ‘chaotic' court cases, Gauteng judge says
The Road Accident Fund does not deal with its matters properly and does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications, resulting in 'default' judgments, said Judge Jan Pretorius. A judge of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has blasted the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for its 'chaotic approach to litigation' which has resulted in huge losses of public money. Courts are swamped with RAF cases, many of them without merit or with overinflated claims for compensation. But 'the main problem lies with the RAF', said Judge Jan Pretorius in a recent judgment. The RAF does not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions. This results in 'default' judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds. 'In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,' said Judge Pretorius. Read the judgment here. In the week of 5 May he had granted judgments against the fund of R25-million, and two other courts made default judgments in the same week which he said would have added R50-million to the RAF's liabilities. '[A]t the same time it pleads poverty.' He pointed out that in two matters with overinflated claims, the RAF had not provided any expert reports to assist the court in assessing whether the claims were reasonable. The case before Judge Pretorius was an application by the RAF to rescind part of a previous order granted in favour of a road accident victim in 2021. The RAF had been ordered to pay past medical expenses of R223,000 and future loss of earnings of R6-million. The RAF's rescission application was made outside of the allowed timeframe. It gave no explanation for this. A more 'serious problem', Judge Pretorius said, was that the RAF made three untrue submissions to the court: that the 2021 hearing was heard virtually, that its defence had been previously struck out, and it had been barred from making submissions to the court. The record showed that the matter had been heard in open court, its defences were never struck out and the fund was represented at court by Ms N Xegwana from the office of the State Attorney. It had been placed on record that she was there to 'note the judgment' and had no instructions to make any submissions. Judge Pretorius said that because of these 'false averments', there was no legal basis to rescind the judgment. He had advised Ms N Kunene, who drafted the affidavit with the false claims, and Tonya de Beer, who deposed it, to appear before him. He was considering making them personally pay the costs of the litigation. Kunene then explained that she drafted the affidavit after receiving a memorandum from the RAF in which the alleged facts were spelled out. She did not know they were not true. She said De Beer was merely asked to sign the affidavit and she herself did not have knowledge of the facts of the matter. Judge Pretorius said this was 'highly unacceptable' and 'perturbing'. 'The result is that the respondent (the claimant) has been dragged to court to oppose an application based on falsehoods.' He said that 'although I cannot express my disapproval of Ms Kunene and Ms de Beer's conduct strongly enough, I accept that they did not set out to mislead. The falsehoods originated from the fund, who misrepresented the facts to them.' Because of this he would not make a personal cost order against them. He ordered the RAF to pay costs on a punitive scale. 'This application has added to the applicant's financial burdens in that it will be required to settle the costs of a doomed application which resulted from its own inept management of its affairs.' Losing by default 'The main problem lies with the [RAF and its chaotic approach to litigation, of which this application is but one example,' Judge Pretorius wrote. He said when the fund had terminated the services of its panel attorneys, there had been warnings that default judgments would result and inflated claims would not be properly scrutinised. This proved to be true and five years later, the RAF's system was largely still 'in chaos'. 'Many cases are heard every day in which the applicant is not represented at court or, if it is, instructions are not forthcoming.' Judge Pretorius said this was in spite of the fund being given special legal treatment – not extended to any other litigant – in that it was given multiple opportunities to comply with the rules of court. 'Notwithstanding the multiple warnings it has received, I still had 41 unopposed matters on the default roll in the week of 5 May 2025. In eight of these matters, the defence had been struck out and in 13, the fund was under bar [failing to file papers within the prescribed time]. In 20 cases the fund had not even noted an appearance to defend.' He said this failure by the fund to properly exercise its constitutional duties 'required urgent attention'. DM
