Transport (DoT) as a measure aimed at protecting the vulnerable, addressing poverty, and defending human rights as expressed in Chapter Two of the Constitution – so why is it deemed controversial?
The revival of the RABS Bill is a departure from South Africa’s existing common law compensation system administered by the Road Accident Fund (RAF).
After months of uncertainty and the abandonment of the RAF Amendment Bill, Deputy Transport Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa confirmed that the RABS Bill is being reintroduced as part of necessary legislative reforms.
Proponents of the RABS argue the shift is important because the current RAF system is financially unsustainable, inefficient, and vulnerable to widespread abuse. The RABS Bill proposes replacing the existing third-party insurance model with a defined-benefits social security scheme.
Here is what is changing and why these proposals have sparked debate over sustainability versus fairness, exclusion and mounting concerns.
What is changing?
The RABS Bill was initially released in 2017 but rejected by the National Assembly in 2020. Now, it proposes four huge changes. According to documents and statements from the government, this is what South Africans can expect.
Shift to no-fault cover
The RABS Bill proposes establishing a no-fault social insurance scheme.
Under the current RAF, compensation relies on proving fault on the part of another driver, and payment is adjusted based on contributory negligence.
However, RABS removes the requirement to establish fault and ensures expanded access to benefits for all road users. This suggests that accident victims qualify for benefits regardless of who caused the crash.
While RABS proponents argue this expands coverage to thousands of previously excluded passengers and victims, there are concerns that the no-fault system means negligent drivers would qualify for the same compensation as innocent victims.
However, the RAF stresses that RABS does not indemnify reckless and drunken drivers from criminal prosecution, which will be pursued by other State organs.