Fierce backlash against proposed Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill following RAF board dissolution
Creecy, who recently took over the transport portfolio, said the dissolution was necessary to stabilise the RAF and restore its ability to fulfil its mandate.
She also confirmed the department's intention to finalise the Road Accident Benefits Scheme (RABS) Bill, a move that various organisations say is both undemocratic and dangerous.
The department explained that the RABS Bill seeks to replace the current fault-based compensation model with a no-fault system, removing the need for costly legal processes.
Civil society organisations, legal experts, and advocacy groups, many of whom have fought against the bill for years, have condemned its reintroduction. Among them is the Association for the Protection of Road Accident Victims (APRAV), which warned that pushing the bill forward again is a direct affront to democracy.
'Parliament has rejected RABS three times already,' said APRAV Deputy Chairperson and spokesperson Ngoako Mohlaloga.
'The continued attempt to revive it is either deliberate ignorance or a strategic attempt to bypass the will of the people.'
APRAV Chairperson Pieter de Bruyn said the bill was rejected not only by lawmakers but also by road accident victims, legal professionals, disability rights groups, and medical experts.
'RABS would have stripped victims of their right to legal recourse, capped compensation, and imposed rigid limitations,' he said.
'It was unworkable and unjust, and its continued reappearance shows this is about pushing a political agenda, not real reform.'
APRAV also pointed out that it led a two-year national consultation process that resulted in a credible and workable alternative to RABS, one that would fix the RAF without violating constitutional rights or collapsing the public purse.
Legal expert Kirstie Haslam, a personal injury attorney and partner at DSC Attorneys, told Independent Media that the RABS Bill fails to tackle the real problems at the RAF, namely, poor management, inefficiency, and lack of accountability.
'RABS replaces a broken system with another flawed one,' Haslam said.
'It doesn't fix the root causes of RAF's dysfunction, and worse, it strips victims of access to justice by capping payouts and removing the right to claim for general damages.'
She also added that the bill's attempt to limit legal oversight raises serious constitutional concerns and could face court challenges if passed in its current form.
Haslam further highlighted troubling trends in the RAF's finances, which, although improved, have come at a cost.
The RAF's 2023/2024 annual report shows the deficit has dropped from R8.43 billion to R1.59 billion, but partly due to reduced medical and loss-of-earnings payouts.
Despite the tightening of spending, courts continue to issue significant awards.
She revealed a series of recent payouts, such as in April, when a woman received over R4.6 million following the death of her husband in a motorcycle accident. That same month, another claimant, Seronica Nathram, was awarded nearly R3.9 million for injuries sustained in a crash.
Another case involving the Road Accident Fund that commanded attention involved 16-year-old Ashwell Bernard Jones, where the Western Cape High Court awarded Jones just under R4,979,832 for future loss of earnings.
He was only eight years old when he sustained a serious brain injury after being hit by a vehicle while riding his bicycle in Lavender Hill in 2017. The court ordered the RAF to cover all legal costs, including expert fees, travel expenses, and the possible appointment of a curator to manage the funds. The RAF was given 180 days to make payment, or interest will begin to accrue.
While many groups remain opposed to the revival of RABS, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has backed the minister, calling the RAF a 'disaster site' with liabilities exceeding R400 billion.
'The RAF has become dysfunctional and has failed working-class South Africans for too long,' COSATU said in a statement. 'It's time for bold reform.'
Responding to questions, the RAF Head of Corporate Communications, McIntosh Polela, said the RABS Bill is being revisited to address longstanding issues in the current RAF Act.
'The RABS Bill aims to reduce litigation, cut high administrative costs, and accelerate claim finalisation,' the fund said. 'It is part of a broader strategy led by the Department of Transport to ease the pressure on the courts and better serve road accident victims.'
[email protected]
Saturday Star
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
The DA is failing dismally
Every passing week brings a new reversal for the DA. Party leader John Steenhuisen has misjudged every single power play made by the ANC. The DA performed much better as the official opposition than it did in its self-appointed role as the party that would galvanise the government of national unity (GNU). The same is true of its leader, John Steenhuisen. Its ministers have executed their duties with a zeal that puts their ANC counterparts to shame. But its larger strategy has fallen flat. The DA believed this link-up for the greater good with its former foe was a prerequisite for achieving the economic lift-off that would drag in its slipstream a fleet of benefits, such as revitalised institutions. It is self-evident that nothing like that has happened. ALSO READ: Steenhuisen has made a bad situation worse with tactical blunders Instead, the DA has been house-trained by the ANC. It barks furiously and still strains at the leash on occasion, but it will sit up and beg on President Cyril Ramaphosa's command. While I don't share the disdain of many journalists for Steenhuisen, some of the criticism is deserved. As DA leader, he has misjudged every single power play made by the ANC, from accepting a poor partnership deal at the outset to being goaded into making meaningless threats that he has been forced to back off from. Every passing week brings a new reversal for the DA. This week, its support ensured that the Appropriation Bill for all government departments was passed at its first reading. It's about as complete a climbdown as can be imagined for a party that had threatened to block the Bill. The plan had been that this would be the DA riposte to Ramaphosa's sudden firing of the DA's Andrew Whitfield, Steenhuisen had been incandescent. 'If this situation is not corrected, it will go down as the greatest political mistake in modern SA history,' he warned parliament. On the face of it, it was a brilliantly simple move. The DA would counter the ANC by singling out only departments headed by ministers implicated in corruption. ALSO READ: Steenhuisen warned of 'insubordination' over national dialogue stance Unless Ramaphosa sacked those ministers within 48 hours, the DA would join the uMkhonto weSizwe party and the department of economic development in voting down their departmental budgets, thus stymying the passage of the Appropriation Bill. The DA, said Steenhuisen, would vote against the departmental budgets of Nobuhle Nkabane (higher education), Thembi Simelane (human settlements) and 'corruption-accused ANC ministers'. The DA would also withdraw from the National Dialogue, no doubt the DA was chortling at its genius. At least three 'compromised' ANC politicians would bite the dust and the DA would be perceived to be guardians of governmental integrity. It didn't work out quite like that. Ramaphosa did indeed fire Nkabane, but it had more to do with ANC self-interest than the DA ultimatum. She was already fatally politically wounded and facing cross-party, including ANC, sanctions from the parliamentary ethics committee. ALSO READ: 'Long overdue' – Opposition parties welcome Nkabane's removal And in a real up-yours, Ramaphosa didn't fire any of the other DA-named ministers. This turned out to be just another dismally misjudged power play by Steenhuisen. But Steenhuisen has hinted that he has one card to play: proposing a motion of no confidence. This would not mean a general election – constitutionally, the earliest this could happen is in 2027 – but if it succeeded, Ramaphosa would have to resign. In that kind of scramble, because the ANC is so deeply divided, the DA could, at last, influence the direction of the state by choosing the person at the top, rather than merely lending the party their votes. It's time for the DA to etch a steely red line. READ NEXT: 'Right-wing nexus': Presidency cautions South Africans against the DA
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Willies Mchunu defends MPLs' decision to oppose the Division of Revenue Bill
MKP convenor in KwaZulu-Natal Willies Mchunu says the party will not discipline the six MPLs who voted against the Bill. Image: supplied Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) will not discipline the 'rebelling' six members of KwaZulu-Natal Legislature who voted against the Division of Revenue Bill because they did the 'right thing' This was confirmed by the party's provincial leader Willies Mchunu on Saturday. He said there was no plan to act against the six MPLs for their action which the party does not deem wrong. He stated that when you look at the national leadership position on the Bill which rejected it, the six members do not seem to be in the wrong. Mchunu further stated that there was no communication between the provincial leadership and the caucus before voting therefore the party will not act against anyone, adding that he has directed the caucus to discuss the matter and find each other. 'We will not act against anyone in this matter and we have directed our caucus to sort it out themselves in the legislature. I think there was a misunderstanding,' said Mchunu. In an unprecedented move last week, six party MPLs broke ranks with the caucus and voted against the bill while 31 other members supported during the chamber sitting, prompting calls for action against the 'rebelling' MPLs, however, the members defended their decision. The member who spoke on condition of anonymity on Thursday denied going against the party's position, saying it was him and other five members who kept the long-standing position and voted against the Bill. He stated that firstly, the new chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi never called a caucus meeting before voting and there was no new instruction for members to vote in a particular way. He said in the absence of an instruction, the six of them followed a long-standing position that the MKP will never support anything that comes from the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU) since the party believes the elections were rigged. Furthermore, the member said to prove that they were not wrong, the party has not charged them after explaining their side to the provincial leadership under convener Willies Mchunu. The member further said that in their engagement with Mchunu it "became clear that it was an oversight from those who supported the Bill". However, the party chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi disputed the member's version that there was no meeting or mandate to support the Bill. He stated that he called a caucus meeting where he informed the members of the position and even articulated the position when he spoke for the party before voting for the Bill. 'I am chief whip of the party in the legislature and spoke in the chamber that the party will support the Bill since it was talking about transparency and accountability so I was speaking on behalf of the party,' said Mngadi. He said he would not want to discuss the matter further since it was reported to the provincial leadership. There was also confusion when the same Bill was voted in parliament on Wednesday where the MKP chief whip Colleen Makhubekele voted yes for the bill only to change her vote later, arguing that she thought the vote was about the Ad hoc committee on allegations of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's interference in police operations which we were reported by KwaZulu-Natal provincial Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. [email protected]
IOL News
4 days ago
- IOL News
Communities call for stricter measures for marriages between locals and foreign nationals
Residents of Greater Lejweleputswa District Municipality called for stricter measures to ascertain the authenticity of marriages between foreign nationals and South Africans. Image: Emma Bauso/pexels At the recent public hearings on the Marriage Bill held at the Toronto Recreation Centre in Welkom, residents of the Greater Lejweleputswa District Municipality voiced their concerns over the rise of marriages of convenience between foreign nationals and South Africans. This was the second of three public hearings in the Free State, where community members presented a robust call for stricter measures to verify the authenticity of marriages, fearing that fraudulent entries could compromise the integrity of the national register. Participants echoed a collective apprehension regarding the troubling trend of marriages that, they argued, are not motivated by genuine intentions. "It is essential that the Bill outlines a clear process to distinguish authentic unions from those undermined by nefarious motives," said one attendee. The committee has previously heard similar concerns in other provinces and has urged the Department of Home Affairs to take immediate action to investigate these claims comprehensively. In addition to concerns over fraudulent marriages, the hearings have also revealed a variety of differing opinions regarding the alignment of the Marriage Bill with the South African Constitution. Some participants expressed that integrating different marriage laws into a single statute may infringe upon the constitutional right to choose. When it came to polygamous marriages, the views proved equally divided. Advocates for polygamy highlighted its historical significance within African communities, asserting that formal recognition within the legal framework could provide much-needed certainty. Conversely, opponents raised concerns over sustainability and potential conflicts, particularly regarding property rights, and called for a ban on such arrangements. The discussion also ventured into the contentious issue of same-sex marriages, with representatives from various faith-based organisations opposing the recognition of these unions based on religious teachings. However, proponents of same-sex marriage adamantly argued for the constitutional rights of all citizens to love and marry whomever they choose. The committee expressed disappointment over instances of perceived discrimination against same-sex couples, reiterating the importance of protecting the Constitutional rights of every South African. Another area of debate focused on the legal age of consent, with some participants supporting the established threshold of 18 years, while others contended that younger individuals should complete their educational pathways before entering marriage. Marriage officers also raised a significant concern about potential repercussions they might face should they refuse to solemnise marriages that conflict with their personal beliefs. Many called for clearly defined protections for these officers, as well as a comprehensive rollout plan for the training of new marriage officers in alignment with the provisions of the Bill. With the final hearings on the Marriage Bill set to take place today in the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality, the committee has urged residents to attend and share their insights concerning this pivotal legislation. IOL
