The Road Accident Fund: Recent Developments and Ongoing Challenges

Written by Onkgopotse Kwape (candidate attorney) (BA Law, LBB)

Published on December 12, 2025

In recent years, South Africans injured in road accidents have increasingly found themselves waiting years for compensation from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). In one case before the High Court, a claimant who was left paralysed after a motor vehicle collision had to wait nearly five years before receiving any payment. Her story mirrors that of thousands of others across the country who depend on the Fund for future medical expenses and income support yet face long delays and mounting uncertainty.

The Road Accident Fund remains a crucial pillar of social protection, established to compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents for injury or loss of support caused by negligent driving. Yet, the RAF has been plagued by administrative backlogs, financial strain, and proposed legal reforms that could alter the landscape of personal injury compensation in South Africa.

Why the RAF’s Finances Are in Crisis

The RAF’s financial instability has become one of its most pressing challenges. According to the Auditor General’s 2024 report, the Fund recorded irregular expenditure exceeding R5 billion, driven by ongoing litigation, system inefficiencies, and weak financial controls. The Fund continues to operate under a large deficit, with billions owed to claimants, medical service providers, and legal expences.

For claimants, these financial struggles translate into long delays, uncertain payouts, and mounting frustration. Many victims rely on compensation to cover medical expenses or loss of earnings but find themselves waiting years for relief.

Government efforts to improve sustainability, including tighter auditing, budget reallocation, and internal restructuring, have yet to resolve the issue. The challenge lies in achieving financial discipline without sacrificing access to justice for victims of road accidents.

The Push for Direct Claims: A Step Forward or a Step Back

The RAF has recently intensified its campaign encouraging the public to lodge direct claims without legal representation. While the stated goal is to simplify the process and reduce legal costs, this shift has raised significant concerns among practitioners and the public alike.

In practice, the RAF claim process remains highly technical. It involves strict time limits, the proper completion of forms such as the RAF 1 form which is the main claim form that must be completed and submitted to the RAF to formally lodge a claim and RAF 4 form is used to determine whether the claimant’s injuries are considered “serious” under the RAF Act, and the submission of detailed medical and actuarial reports. Without legal guidance, many claimants fail to meet procedural requirements or settle for inadequate amounts.

As seen in Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (2023), the courts have cautioned that administrative backlogs and internal inefficiencies cannot justify delays or reduced compensation. This decision reinforces that the Fund’s obligation to act lawfully and fairly remains paramount, even amid financial or structural challenges.

While direct claims may appear cost effective, in reality, they risk widening the gap between informed and vulnerable claimants, undermining the RAF’s purpose of equitable redress.

The RAF Amendment Bill: What the Future May Hold

The proposed RAF Amendment Bill has sparked intense debate across the legal and public sectors. The Bill’s stated objectives include curbing fraud, improving administrative efficiency, and ensuring long term sustainability. However, many stakeholders fear it could restrict compensation rather than enhance it.

Among the most contested proposals are:

• * Limiting the scope of non-pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering
• * Introducing fixed compensation categories
• * Narrowing eligibility for dependents and secondary victims

While reform is necessary, any amendment that reduces fairness or accessibility risks violating constitutional principles of equality and access to courts. Policymakers must strike a careful balance between financial control and justice for victims.

Delays and Backlogs: The Hidden Barrier to Justice

Beyond finances and reform, systemic delays remain the Fund’s greatest weakness. Thousands of claims remain unresolved due to administrative inefficiencies, understaffing, and poor digital infrastructure.

Despite initiatives to digitise claim submissions and improve claim tracking, many victims still face long waiting periods for serious injury assessments, payment approvals, or even acknowledgement of receipt. Such delays undermine the RAF’s very purpose, which is to provide timely and fair compensation to those injured on South African roads.

With more than 12 000 fatalities and over 140 000 serious injuries reported annually, the need for an efficient compensation mechanism is greater than ever.

Restoring Trust and Accountability

Public confidence in the RAF has waned over time. To rebuild trust, the Fund must prioritise transparency, communication, and collaboration with the legal community. Greater accountability in management decisions, open reporting on claim progress, and consistent public engagement can go a long way in restoring faith in the system.

The RAF cannot fulfil its constitutional mandate without the cooperation of legal practitioners, policymakers, and the public. Attorneys, in particular, play a critical role in ensuring that claimants are treated fairly and receive the compensation they deserve.

Onkgopotse Kwape
Candidate Attorney