Fierce backlash against proposed Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill following RAF board dissolution
Various organisations have raised significant concerns regarding the proposed finalisation of the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, especially following a crucial move by the Minister of Transport, Ms. Barbara Creecy, who has dissolved the Board of Directors of the Road Accident Fund (RAF).
The Department of Transport's move to revive the long-rejected Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill has sparked concerns, following Minister Barbara Creecy's announcement that she has dissolved the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Board due to ongoing governance and operational failures.
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.'
anita.nkonki@inl.co.za
Saturday Star
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Fierce backlash against proposed Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill following RAF board dissolution
The Department of Transport's move to revive the long-rejected Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill has sparked concerns, following Minister Barbara Creecy's announcement that she has dissolved the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Board due to ongoing governance and operational failures. 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
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Fierce backlash against proposed Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill following RAF board dissolution
Various organisations have raised significant concerns regarding the proposed finalisation of the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, especially following a crucial move by the Minister of Transport, Ms. Barbara Creecy, who has dissolved the Board of Directors of the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Various organisations have raised significant concerns regarding the proposed finalisation of the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, especially following a crucial move by the Minister of Transport, Ms. Barbara Creecy, who has dissolved the Board of Directors of the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The Department of Transport's move to revive the long-rejected Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill has sparked concerns, following Minister Barbara Creecy's announcement that she has dissolved the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Board due to ongoing governance and operational failures. 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.' Saturday Star
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Six MKP members in KZN defend their vote against the Division of Revenue Bill
The KwaZulu-Natal Legislature building in Pietermaritzburg. Image: Shan Pillay One of the six Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) members of KwaZulu-Natal legislature who voted against the Division of Revenue Bill has defended their decision and accused the party MPLs who supported it as out of line. In an unprecedented move, six party MPLs broke ranks with the caucus and voted against the bill while 31 other members supported during the chamber sitting last week, prompting calls for action against the 'rebelling' MPLs. 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 never called a caucus meeting before voting and there was no new instruction for members to vote in a particular way therefore 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. 'We hear people saying we undermined the party's instruction and we wonder which one because we never received any instruction to vote for this bill nor were we called to a caucus meeting before voting. In the absence of any new instruction, we decided to follow the long-standing position we were given when the government was constituted last year that our party will not support any thing that would come with the GPU since we were robbed of an opportunity that was given to us by the voters to be the government of the province,' said the member. 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. Attempts to get Willies Mchunu were unsuccessful. 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]
