State Attorney calls for a new Road Accident Fund tribunal

A dedicated Road Accident Fund tribunal would relieve the pressure on the courts which are clogged with RAF claims, the assistant State Attorney in Johannesburg says. Graphic: Lisa Nelson

• The assistant State Attorney in Johannesburg, Simbongile Siyali, has called for a dedicated tribunal to deal with Road Accident Fund (RAF) cases.
• This would relieve the pressure on the courts which are currently clogged with RAF compensation claims.
• In an article published in December he says South Africa already has other specialised courts such as the Labour Court and the Competition Tribunal.

South Africa’s judicial system is so clogged with Road Accident Fund (RAF) cases that a top judicial official has called for an RAF tribunal.

The RAF is a government agency that compensates people for losses resulting from vehicle accidents. It receives most of its income from the RAF levy, currently at R2.18 per litre on petrol and diesel.

The fund has been in disarray for years.

A judge of the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has said the RAF’s “chaotic approach to litigation” has resulted in huge losses of public money. In a ruling last June, Judge Jan Swanepoel said the RAF did not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions.

This resulted in “default” judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds.

“In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,” said Swanepoel.

Now Simbongile Siyali, assistant State Attorney in Johannesburg, has made the case for a special tribunal in a piece published in December 2025 by the Law Society of South Africa’s (LSSA) magazine, De Rebus. The LSSA represents South Africa’s attorneys.

Siyali said the government had intended the RAF to be efficient, but laying a claim has become a cumbersome, litigious process that has overwhelmed the judiciary and burdened claimants.

“The mounting backlog of RAF cases – often stretching into years before resolution – has eroded public confidence in the system,” he wrote.

Siyali also pointed out that high courts are ill-suited to deal efficiently with the technical and repetitive nature of RAF claims.

“Against this backdrop, the establishment of a specialised tribunal dedicated exclusively to RAF matters emerges not merely as an administrative convenience but as a constitutional necessity.”

The huge RAF case backlog had profound human consequences, he said.

“Many RAF claimants are individuals who have suffered serious bodily injuries, loss of income or the death of a breadwinner.”

He said there were other specialised courts, including the Labour Court, the Competition Tribunal, the Land Claims Court, the Tax Court and the Electoral Court.

A dedicated tribunal could develop institutional expertise and standardise approaches to damages assessment.

“In doing so, it would improve not only the speed of adjudication but also the substantive fairness of outcomes.”

A RAF tribunal would comprise adjudicators – possibly senior judges, senior magistrates, and legal practitioners – who have significant experience in personal injury and insurance law.

The tribunal would be cost-effective, he said.

“The current model is extraordinarily expensive for claimants and the Fund.”

“The time has come for bold reform. Establishing a specialised tribunal for RAF disputes would not only unclog the courts but would mark a decisive step toward a more efficient, responsive and humane justice system – one that truly delivers on the constitutional promise of access to justice for all.”

Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) is currently holding an inquiry into the RAF.

SCOPA member and ActionSA MP Alan Beesley said it was painfully clear that the RAF “is completely broken”.

He said ActionSA would support the establishment of a specialised RAF tribunal.

“If urgent changes are not implemented, the RAF horror show will continue, and the clogging up of the justice system will get considerably worse,” Beesley said.

DA MP and SCOPA member Patrick Atkinson told GroundUp the DA would support any action that would help streamline the resolution of RAF claims.

“The establishment of a RAF tribunal that would deal specifically with RAF matters would go some way to alleviating the burden on both the courts, as they stand, with court rolls clogged with RAF matters, and speed up the finalisation of claims.”

But Atkinson warned that an RAF tribunal would be a partial resolution for a “completely dysfunctional process”. He said RAF court cases could be reduced by running an efficient settlement system where the RAF would make offers to claimants based on a transparent menu of payouts for a specified list of injuries and their severity.

“If run efficiently, far fewer cases would end up in court, and lawyers would have to balance the value of an immediate settlement versus a protracted court battle that may not yield much more for their clients.”

ANC MP and SCOPA member Helen Neale-May said she was unable to comment

GroundUp emailed SCOPA chairperson Songezo Zibi’s spokesperson but no response had been received at the time of publication.

Wayne Duvenage, the chief executive of Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) said he would support a dedicated RAF tribunal.

‘We believe that the RAF entity has been badly managed and fraught with political interference over the past decade to 15 years,” he said.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast