Road accident victims association warns that not even the Constitutional Court can do anything once the period allowed for these claims has lapsed.
About 50 000 valid Road Accident Fund (RAF) claims that were rejected because of the fund’s unlawful RAF1 Form for claims are in danger of prescribing, warns the Association for the Protection of Road Accident Victims (Aprav).
Aprav chair Pieter de Bruyn said on Monday the RAF Act is a statute, and not even the Constitutional Court can revive a claim that has lapsed.
De Bruyn claims that an estimated 170 000 valid claims were rejected because of the failure of claimants to complete the RAF1 Form, which has been declared illegal in several court judgments.
“Think about the implications. There are 50 000 of these claims which must be close to the two- or three-year cutout and to lapse. They are gone forever.
“The state will just say to you that you have missed the deadline, and not even the appeal court or the Constitutional Court can change that,” he said.
“The only way you can change that will be if the act of parliament changes.
“That means potentially 170 000 people and members of the public will not get their day in court, their just consideration and their just compensation.”
Aprav deputy chair Ngoako Mohlaloga said a hit-and-run accident claim prescribes in two years and normal claims prescribe in three years.
ALSO READ: Road accident body calls on Creecy to act on RAF board’s unlawful notice
Minister praised but criticised
De Bruyn lauded Minister of Transport Barbara Creecy for taking action to remove “bad apples and non-law abiding board members and executives” and replacing them with people who are starting to have claimants as the primary solution when nobody wanted to take action for 10 years.
However, De Bruyn claimed Creecy “through her silence” is condoning the rejection of the about 170 000 valid claims through her failure to “instruct the interim board” to withdraw the unlawful board notice.
RAF interim board chair Kenneth Brown earlier this month confirmed the RAF has decided to revert back to its previous accounting standard, but is continuing to use the RAF1 Form for claims because it has a case pending at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) about the use of the form.
Brown denied the RAF has “hidden” liabilities of R230 billion from about 80 000 legitimate claims that have not been registered on the RAF’s system because of the use of a new claim form, but indicated the RAF’s liabilities because of the use of a different accounting standard is “anybody’s guess but somewhere between R300 billion and R400 billion”.
The RAF’s board confirmed late on Friday it has placed acting CEO Phathutshedzo Lukhwareni, chief financial officer Bernice Potgieter, chief governance officer Mampe Kumalo and the head in the Office of the CEO on precautionary suspension with immediate effect.
The name of the head in the Office of the RAF CEO is not known.
ALSO READ: How RAF’s own decisions drove it into crisis
The RAF said the decision to place these officials on precautionary suspension was taken to allow for an independent and unhindered investigation into certain administrative and governance matters within the organisation.
“These precautionary measures do not in any way constitute a finding of wrongdoing against the affected officials but are intended to ensure the integrity and transparency of the investigative process.
“However, it reflects the board’s determination to act in the best interests of the organisation, safeguard public trust, and uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct in the management of public funds,” it said.
De Bruyn was critical on Monday about Lukhwareni being placed on precautionary suspension.
He said there has been a change at the RAF to “sensible leadership” through an acting board and “sensible executives” led by Lukhwareni, who he claimed “has really been the architect behind the steps forward” at the RAF.
“Our concern is that some of the executives have now been suspended. We have no understanding of this.
“There have been payments made to the tune of R4 billion per month in the last three months, of which the majority goes to claimants,” he said.
De Bruyn added that Lukhwareni is the person who is fixing the RAF and has been suspended.
He said Potgieter “has been party to a lot of wrongdoing” and has to come back to parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) to explain herself “but not the acting CEO”.
De Bruyn described Scopa’s inquiry into the RAF as “one of the single biggest corruption initiatives in the past 10 years”.
ALSO READ: RAF liabilities could increase by R400bn
RABS Bill concerns
De Bruyn is also critical of Creecy’s stated intention to finalise the Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) Bill to replace the current RAF Act.
The RABS Bill, if approved, will introduce a no-fault system to make it easier for road accident victims to access the benefits without costly legal bills but is generally opposed by the legal fraternity and other RAF stakeholders.
De Bruyn said Aprav greatly supports the Ministry of Transport and Creecy, but believes the minister needs “to get better advice and read why parliament rejected RABS and … be open to the real and sustainable solutions that exist”.
He claimed it was never explained to the public that the RABS Bill will:
- Result in a need for five to eight years of double funding, and the two levies in the funding model would have doubled the fuel levy;
- Not accept claims from people older than 60 and children;
- Result in claims only being valid for 15 years and if you are permanently disabled at the age of 30, you will be paid until the age of 45 and then sent home “and left to die”; and
- Not pay a lump sum and (will) pay you an annuity but you will never be able to get back the house and car that you might have lost.
In addition, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is a requisite for the RABS to work but it does not exist and it is unclear where people will go for treatment and rehabilitation, he said.
However, De Bruyn said Aprav believes the RAF, while in dire straits, has taken the first steps towards restoring lawfulness and a professional focus on the claimants.
But he said Creecy must remove “the few last remaining unlawful issues, which are an impediment”, including the unlawful accounting standard and RAF1 Form.
De Bruyn also pleaded for the reappointment of a panel of attorneys in terms of the RAF Act that can represent the RAF and the state “to make sure claims are not overpaid”.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
