Road accident victims could lose out under new government plan
Person at a road split, choosing between RAF and RABS signs under a cloudy sky
Aprav urges government to fix existing system instead of introducing flawed new scheme
The Association for the Protection of Road Accident Victims (Aprav) has called on Transport Minister Barbara Creecy to halt the proposed reintroduction of the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill, warning that it would be a step backwards for victims of road accidents across South Africa.
Minister Creecy recently announced the dissolution of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) board, along with plans to revive the controversial RABS Bill. The proposed legislation seeks to establish a no-fault, defined-benefit compensation system that, according to Creecy, aims to simplify access to support for accident victims and reduce legal expenses.
However, Aprav – a non-profit advocacy group comprising professionals dedicated to defending the rights of road accident victims – strongly opposes the bill. The organisation argues that instead of pursuing a new framework, government should focus on properly implementing the existing RAF Act.
Out of Touch with Reality
Speaking at a National Press Club media briefing in Pretoria, Aprav deputy chair Ngoako Mohlaloga criticised the RABS Bill as being out of touch with the everyday challenges faced by most South Africans. He described it as a “Sandton bill” – devised in affluent corporate environments far removed from rural communities where access to transport, emergency care, and digital communication is limited or non-existent.
According to Mohlaloga, the proposed system will worsen the plight of accident victims. “People are already traumatised by the accident itself – now they’re being failed again by a broken system. Introducing RABS will make things worse, not better.”
He also pointed out that the current RAF system is mired in dysfunction, with no active board, a suspended CEO, and a massive backlog of unresolved claims. The Special Investigating Unit is currently probing the fund for suspected corruption and financial mismanagement.
One-Size-Fits-All Won’t Work
Under the proposed RABS model, compensation would be predetermined based on the type of injury sustained, with no regard for the unique circumstances of each accident or individual. Payments would be made monthly, with no provision for urgent medical expenses, and would lapse after 15 years.
Mohlaloga stressed that the scheme’s reliance on a functioning National Health Insurance (NHI) system is highly unrealistic, as the NHI remains far from being fully operational – particularly in rural areas.
In practical terms, victims would need to:
- Submit an online application via email
- Complete an eight-page form electronically
- Receive feedback via SMS
- Appeal to the same administrative body if rejected
“The poor – especially those without internet access or smartphones – will be excluded by default,” he said.
Financial Burden and Legal Uncertainty
Aprav argues that the proposed scheme would not reduce government liabilities but instead increase them by an estimated 60%. The RAF’s current contingent liability already sits at R368 billion for the 2025/26 fiscal year.
Aprav chair Pieter de Bruyn noted that the RAF has a well-established legal framework that has been thoroughly tested in court, ensuring a high level of certainty. He stressed that while legal costs can be prohibitive for individuals, this was precisely why the RAF was introduced in the first place – to ensure fair compensation for victims, regardless of income.
De Bruyn warned that reviving RABS would waste years of legislative effort only to fail once again, as it has in previous attempts. He urged the Minister to instead consider Aprav’s 10-point plan for reforming the RAF, which was submitted to Parliament in 2022 following an official call for proposals.
“Less Money, Fewer Rights, No Accountability”
Ultimately, Aprav believes the RABS Bill would strip victims of their rights while delivering reduced compensation. Mohlaloga summed it up succinctly: “This bill offers less money, fewer rights, and no path to challenge the system when it fails you.”
Rather than implementing a costly and flawed new system, Aprav insists that the answer lies in enforcing the current legislation effectively – ensuring the RAF serves its intended purpose of protecting and supporting road accident victims across the country.
