The Road Accident Fund (RAF) is at the centre of a contentious debate that could redefine its very purpose in South Africa. CEO Collins Letsoalo describes the ongoing tensions with the legal fraternity and various pressure groups as “a battle for the soul of the RAF.” He alleges that these groups, comprised of individuals profiting significantly from the current system, are fighting to thwart efforts aimed at transforming the fund into a more equitable social benefit scheme. According to Letsoalo, this scheme would eliminate the need for road accident victims to resort to litigation for compensation.
Letsoalo argues that the existing RAF structure disproportionately favours wealthy claimants and their legal representatives, while failing to adequately support the most vulnerable road users. Determined to enact change, he has vowed to revamp the system to ensure fair compensation for all victims, regardless of their financial status.
However, Letsoalo claims that influential law firms have banded together with various NGOs, journalists, and medical professionals to maintain the status quo. He points to retired Professor Hennie Klopper as a key player in this powerful lobbying effort, accusing him of fostering a negative narrative towards the RAF and pushing for the inclusion of pressure groups with whom he is allegedly affiliated.
“The obvious question is why the Prof would elect to ignore these major milestones that are even audited by the AGSA,” Letsoalo remarked. He believes that Klopper and his lobby group are vested in preserving a legal framework that is fraught with fraud and inequality. “They fought the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill (RABS) until it failed in parliament, resisting any move away from a delict-based system towards one that offers defined benefits,” he stated.
Klopper, however, staunchly refutes Letsoalo’s allegations, claiming that the RAF operates much like a typical insurance company and cannot be directly compared to the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA). “The proposed benefit scheme is a smoke and mirrors exercise aimed at reducing the RAF’s liability at the expense of road traffic crash victims. Currently, claimants are entitled to full compensation for their proven damages under the RAF Act,” he argues.
Moreover, Klopper disputes Letsoalo’s assertion that lawyers are reaping undue benefits from the RAF. “It is ironic that the opportunity for lawyers to benefit is created by the RAF itself, which often fails to meet its statutory and constitutional obligations in investigating and finalising claims,” he said, asserting that the RAF barely employs the provisions designed to curtail litigation.
The CEO further contends that Klopper may be unwittingly used by the lobbying group to provide credence to their agenda, suggesting the Professor’s age may limit his ability to produce the numerous articles criticising the RAF. Such assertions were met with skepticism, particularly as Klopper demanded to see a draft of this article for approval—an unusual request for a newsworthy figure.
When questioned about why he required final oversight, Klopper stated, “That is what all journalists we work with do; they send for approval because I have to approve what gets published.” Such a notion raises concerns about journalistic independence and the potential influence of external parties over media narratives regarding the RAF.
This ongoing clash between the RAF and influential stakeholders raises significant questions not only about the future of the fund, but also about the very nature of accountability and compensation for road accident victims in South Africa. As the debate plays out, the implications could resonate far beyond the immediate parties involved, affecting countless lives across the nation.