Transport Minister Barbara Creecy. (Photo: Sharon Seretlo / Gallo Images) Going back to a PowerPoint presentation from 2002 was not on the research bingo card in 2026 (don’t be startled by the download — and please don’t mind the dated design), but when Deputy Transport Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa disclosed that “we intend to introduce the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (Rabs) Bill to Parliament this year… the proposed framework provides for defined structured benefits on a no-fault basis,” the words rang a bell that the halls of Parliament had long forgotten.
The new plan comes after the current Department of Transport recognised the albeit slow revolution rolling out across the asphalt of the nation.
“The growing use of alternative energy vehicles — including electric, hybrid and gas-powered vehicles — will inevitably reduce fuel levy revenue, which remains the primary funding source for the RAF.
"To address this, a gap analysis and business case are being finalised, focusing on the policy and operational design of the Rabs benefits model; the interface between Rabs and third-party motor insurance products; the applicable legal and regulatory framework; and financial, actuarial and funding considerations.”
This description mirrors a 2003 Transport Portfolio Committee meeting, where Judge Kathy Satchwell briefed members on the proposed shift from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to the new Road Accident Benefit Scheme. Satchwell chaired the now-defunct RAF Commission (RAFC) — which, in a display of simpler bureaucratic times, dissolved immediately after finishing its report.
The aim was to equip Rabs with private sector executive competence in management and finance, and administrative expertise in medical aid and pension administration. It was also proposed that lawyers should not be a significant part of the Rabs structure, and Satchwell believed that the RAFC’s proposals would align with the mandate of being reasonable, equitable, affordable and sustainable.
/file/attachments/orphans/Satchwell_884234.jpg "Judge Kathy Satchwell. (Photo: Rhodes University /Wikipedia)")
Something old, something new
The first Mbeki administration was definitely on to something, because the RAFC faulted the compensation system for not allotting funds for the rehabilitation of persons seriously injured in road accidents, lamenting the fact that taxpayer money was, “for the most part, spent on payment for ‘minor’ injuries such as contusions, sprains, and lacerations”.
That was from a 2001 committee briefing where red flags were already raised about the high expense of transaction costs that were discovered in a comprehensive study (don’t freak out, it’s another slideshow download) that found the RAF’s lump-sum structure severely lacking.
Fast forward to today, and the RAF is insolvent.
You know the story: For years, the true depth of the crisis was masked by creative accounting. Management unlawfully transitioned away from established insurance accounting standards (IFRS 4) to effectively erase roughly R293-billion in liabilities from the balance sheet overnight.
Add to that an insane standoff between former CEO Collins Letsoalo and Songezo Zibi’s public accounts committee, the abrupt and disastrous cancellation of the RAF's panel of attorneys (which led to R15.7-billion in default judgments), and a recent Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that revived hundreds of thousands of unlawfully rejected claims.
Wait, how does the RAF gets its cash?
Unlike traditional private insurance where you pay a premium based on your personal risk profile, the RAF is funded almost entirely by a statutory levy slapped onto every litre of petrol and diesel sold in SA. The SA Revenue Service administers the collection of this levy at the pumps.
The model relies on a simple, but fatally flawed, premise: more vehicles on the road equal more fuel sold, which equals a steady stream of revenue. However, the frequency and astronomical costs of accident claims have outpaced organic fuel consumption.
Now, with the rapid global rise of electric and hybrid vehicles that don’t rely on taxed liquid fuel, the RAF’s tax base is structurally shrinking just as its risk pool and liabilities are exploding.
Enter Transport Minister Barbara Creecy, who is acutely aware that the current system is bleeding the state and the taxpayer dry. Speaking during the 2026/27 Transport Budget Vote Debate, she captured the public’s exhaustion with paying for this incompetence at the pumps.
“The Road Accident Fund portion of the fuel levy has come under public scrutiny,” Creecy conceded. Her solution is to pivot away from this unsustainable dependency. “The department is already reviewing the proposed Road Accident Bill to reduce contingent state liability by creating a no-fault system and a standardised injury compensation system,” she explained.
“In addition, we are now researching options for a hybrid funding model that will include both private and public contributions, to lessen the burden on the fiscus going forward.”
Some lawyers will have the blues
Reviving a two-decade-old legislative ghost like Rabs isn’t going to happen without a fierce fight from some corners of the legal fraternity. The Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) ripped into the Rabs blueprint in 2013, and if the plan remains unchanged, its criticisms remain relevant.
For the LSSA, the shift to a no-fault scheme is a fundamental violation of justice that “uniquely deprives innocent road accident victims of their common law rights”. In its assessment of the policy, the society accused Rabs of protecting guilty motorists at the expense of the innocent. In theory, a drunk taxi driver who crashes into a tree would receive the same state benefits as the innocent passengers he maimed.
The LSSA also argued that the scheme is inherently anti-poor. It seeks to replace lump-sum compensation with rigid, capped monthly pensions and restricts medical treatment to prescribed state tariffs.
Stripped of the right to sue the wrongdoer for any financial shortfall, the LSSA warned that Rabs would simply “create a new class of indigent person, to join the ranks of the 13 million already drawing state pensions”. It would also deprive the legal field of the opportunity to defend those potential clients.
Unfortunately, replacing the RAF was never going to be an easy task, but all South Africans can appreciate that there is at least a concept of a plan. We will only know how much of a throwback the Rabs will be when it is published and presented for comment, but we can live in the hope of a return to simpler times. DM