SCOPA Demands Accountability for Former RAF Leadership Over "Fiscal Train Wreck" and Estimated R500 Billion Liability

Parliament’s SCOPA is seeking adverse findings against former RAF management for "massive" legal fees and liabilities that threaten the South African economy.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 25, 2026, 5:40 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from EWN

Demanding Personal Accountability for RAF "Maladministration"

Members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) have signaled their intention to hold the former leadership of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) personally and professionally liable for the entity's financial collapse. During a session on Friday to review the first draft of the RAF oversight inquiry report, committee members argued that former CEO Collins Letsoalo and his board must face consequences for exposing the fund to "billions in liabilities." The inquiry, which has spanned several months, has focused on allegations of systemic maladministration and the excessive use of legal fees to defend rejected claims.

The R500 Billion Liability Threatening the National Fiscus

A central concern for the committee is the sheer scale of the RAF’s debt. While official figures have fluctuated, some MPs estimate that the fund’s total liabilities—including thousands of unprocessed and rejected claims—could be as high as R500 billion. Committee member Patrick Atkinson emphasized that this liability is large enough to "break" the fund and destabilize the national treasury. Consequently, SCOPA has requested an urgent briefing from the National Treasury to provide an accurate, verified estimate of the fund's current financial exposure.

Legal Fees and the "Culture of Fear"

The inquiry has previously heard testimony regarding a "culture of fear" allegedly fostered by Letsoalo, which reportedly led to the sidelining of officials who questioned management decisions. A major point of contention remains the massive legal costs incurred by the RAF in contesting claims. MPs are now looking for "some sort of recompense" from the former management for these costs, which they believe were avoidably high and poorly managed. The committee also revisited controversial decisions, such as the unilateral switch to a new accounting standard that masked the true extent of the fund’s insolvency.