Latest news with #RoadAccidentBenefitsScheme
The Star
4 days ago
- Politics
- 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
4 days ago
- Politics
- 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
6 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
APRAV raises alarm over RABS Bill's impact on road accident victims
Ngoako Mohlaloga, deputy chairperson of APRAV, and Chairman Pieter de Bruyn addressed the media on what they deem the dangers of reintroducing the RABS Bill as a replacement for the RAF. Image: Zelda Venter The Association for the Protection of Road Accident Victims (APRAV) has voiced concern and strong opposition to the reintroduction of the Road Accident Benefits Scheme (RABS) Bill to Parliament, saying a broken system cannot be fixed by stripping away the rights of road accident victims. 'RABS is not reform; it is regression,' Ngoako Mohlaloga, APRAV's deputy chairperson, said on Wednesday. He and the chairman of the association, Pieter de Bruyn, addressed the media during a briefing held in conjunction with the National Press Club on the 'flaws' of the proposed Bill. APRAV's response follows the reintroduction of RABS by Transport Minister Barbara Creecy, a Bill previously rejected three times by Parliament due to its limitations, unaffordable structure, and impractical design. Trade union Cosatu recently voiced its support for the Bill, which it called a progressive measure aimed at protecting the poor. But De Bruyn, however, warns that it will do the opposite, and explains that it will deny victims access to justice, limit financial support, and overwhelm an already dysfunctional Road Accident Fund (RAF). 'This Bill offers less money, fewer rights, and no path to challenge the system when it fails you. If implemented, it will turn the RAF from a safety net into a bureaucratic trap,' he said. In explaining how it will work, De Bruyn said under RABS, road accident victims will no longer receive once-off compensation. Instead, they will receive monthly annuities, regardless of the severity of injury or loss of income. These payments will be capped, and they will terminate immediately if the victim dies. 'You can't pay for trauma surgeries, prosthetics, or settle urgent debt with a few thousand rand a month. RABS shifts the financial burden to victims when they are at their most vulnerable,' De Bruyn said. RABS also removes the right of victims to take their case to court or to access legal assistance. The system places full administrative control in the hands of the RAF, leaving victims with no way to challenge underpayments, delays, or rejections. As it is based on a no-fault model, RABS ensures that even negligent or intoxicated drivers can qualify for compensation. It erases accountability and creates a system vulnerable to fraud, while victims receive reduced and delayed payouts, De Bruyn explained. He added that RABS will also exclude children over 18 who lose a parent, elderly victims over the age of 60, and foreign nationals, as well as informal workers, caregivers, and those not formally employed. APRAV calls this a system of exclusion — not protection. 'If your 19-year-old son depends on you and you're killed in a crash, he will get nothing,' Mohlaloga explained. APRAV has, meanwhile, presented Parliament with a 10-point evidence-based action plan which it said requires minor practical changes to existing legislation. It called for a transparent, public engagement process to determine what is in the best interests of road accident victims. According to the government, the proposed RABS Bill aims to create a more efficient and equitable system for compensating victims of road accidents by focusing on social security principles rather than individual liability. It also proposes that a new body be established to administer the scheme, replacing the current RAF. The proposed RABS Bill has faced considerable opposition in the past, which has delayed its progress. De Bruyn, however, said while APRAV wants the system to be fixed, the proposed Bill is not the answer. He proposed that the RAF should get back on track and settle claims rather than fighting for a law that has failed three times to pass muster. [email protected]
