The South African government’s decision to reintroduce the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill (RABS Bill) has sparked criticism from legal experts, civil society groups, and victim advocacy organisations. Many have labelled the move as “ill-advised,” warning that the bill could harm the very people it’s meant to protect.
ALSO READ: G20 Finance Leaders Warn of Global Economic Risks Due to Geopolitical Tensions and US Tariffs
What is the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill?
The Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill is a proposed law that aims to replace the current Road Accident Fund (RAF) system. The RAF operates on a fault-based model, where injured parties can claim compensation if another party is proven to be at fault.
However, the RABS Bill would introduce a no-fault system, meaning victims could claim benefits regardless of who caused the accident. While this might seem like a fairer approach at first glance, critics argue that the bill does far more harm than good.
Why is the bill being criticised?
1. Victims may receive less compensation.
One of the biggest concerns about the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill is that it removes the lump-sum payouts currently offered under the RAF. Instead, victims would receive capped monthly payments, which many argue are not enough to cover long-term medical needs or support dependents.
Pieter de Bruyn, chairperson of the Association for the Protection of Road Accident Victims (APRAV), warned that families who rely on these payouts could be left struggling. He cited examples where children who lose a breadwinning parent would get significantly less under the proposed system.
2. Excludes vulnerable groups
Another controversial feature of the bill is its exclusion of certain individuals from receiving benefits. People over the age of 60, children under 18, foreign nationals, and informal workers without documented income may not qualify.
Ngoako Mohlaloga from APRAV called this deeply unfair, saying, “It’s a system designed to exclude rather than protect.”
3. Removes the right to sue
Under the current system, road accident victims can take legal action against negligent drivers. The Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill removes this right. This means victims would no longer have the option to challenge poor treatment or unfair decisions in court.
Legal experts have warned that this could lead to abuse of power and a lack of accountability within the new system.
4. Doesn’t solve the RAF’s real problems
Critics say the bill fails to address the actual issues facing the RAF, such as poor management, fraud, and delays in payouts. Instead of fixing these problems, the bill simply introduces a new system without proper oversight or consultation.
Parliament has rejected the RABS Bill multiple times before, for similar reasons. Many are now questioning why it is being brought back again.
The government’s argument for the bill
Transport Minister Barbara Creecy believes the new bill will help reduce legal costs and simplify the claims process. She argues that the no-fault model will lead to quicker, fairer payouts and reduce the need for litigation.
The minister also recently dissolved the RAF Board, citing governance failures, and has committed to improving the fund’s management going forward.
Experts say it’s the wrong solution.
APRAV and other groups have called the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill a “regressive” step. They believe it takes away too many rights from accident victims and replaces them with limited, state-controlled benefits.
They have submitted a 10-point alternative plan to Parliament, suggesting more practical reforms to the current RAF system. This includes better governance, fraud prevention, and faster processing without stripping away legal rights.
READ MORE: Economists Predict Small Increase in Inflation to 3% as June Data Nears
The reintroduction of the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill has triggered a strong backlash. While the government believes it will improve the system, many experts and advocacy groups see it as a threat to the rights and well-being of road accident victims.
True reform, critics argue, should focus on fixing the problems within the RAF, not on replacing it with a system that reduces benefits, limits access, and removes legal protections.