Few pieces of legislation have had as many false starts as the Road Accident Benefit Scheme Bill (RABS). First proposed more than a decade ago, opposed by opposition parties during its 2018 parliamentary process, and allowed to lapse in January 2019, RABS has had more comebacks than a soapie villain everyone thought was written off for good.
In 2026, it’s back again, and this time the Department of Transport is talking like it means it. Deputy Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa told Parliament during the May Budget Vote speech that RABS would be brought before Parliament this year, describing the proposed framework as defined, structured benefits paid on a no-fault basis. That doesn’t mean it’s a done deal. The Department itself admitted the policy, legal, actuarial and funding work is still being finished off. So the real question isn’t whether a no-fault system is “finally coming”. It’s what the reform would actually mean for someone who’s just been in a crash, or who has a claim sitting with the RAF right now.
What “No-Fault” Actually Means
Under the current RAF Act, a claimant generally has to establish the statutory basis for the RAF’s liability. This usually means proving negligent conduct connected to the accident, with the exact requirements varying by circumstance. This is why RAF matters can end up looking like ordinary civil litigation, complete with liability disputes, medical evidence, and sometimes years in the system.
A no-fault scheme flips that. You’d receive defined benefits simply because you suffered a qualifying injury or loss. Nobody has to win an argument about whose fault the crash was first. On paper, that’s an appealing pitch. But don’t mistake it for the current system, minus the blame game – it would be a genuinely different compensation model, with its own benefits, procedures, and limits.
A quick caveat: what follows describes the RABS version debated in 2017/2018, not the still-unpublished 2026 Bill. The earlier text scrapped general damages, swapped lump sums for pensions, and left claimants largely covering their own legal costs, which is why the LSSA has consistently opposed it. Whether any of that survives into the revised Bill is genuinely unknown.
What Seriously Injured Claimants Stand to Lose
Even under the current Act, general damages aren’t handed out for every scrape and bruise. A claimant has to clear the statutory serious-injury threshold first. Clear it, and compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities of life can form a significant slice of the payout, especially for people left with permanent injuries.
The earlier RABS model would have removed that slice entirely and replaced lump sums with benefits paid over time. This may arguably be better for long-term income security, but it strips away the certainty of capital in hand, and could stop altogether when the beneficiary dies. For someone needing a wheelchair-accessible home or years of physio, the no-fault label matters less than what the benefit schedule actually covers.
The Role of Lawyers and Courts
This is the part firms should be talking to clients about now. Under the earlier Bill, claimants would generally have had to cover their own legal and expert costs. The Administrator only helped with certain paperwork, and not full representation. And instead of taking a dispute to court for a full trial, claimants would have been limited to a “review”, where a judge checks whether the Administrator followed a fair process, not whether the decision itself was the right one.
That could make claims quicker and less combative. It could also make it harder for an ordinary claimant to push back on a benefit decision they think falls short, without a lawyer and without the state picking up the tab for one.
Why RABS Keeps Coming Back
The Department says the current RAF model isn’t financially sustainable, and it’s finalising a business case covering the RABS benefit design, funding, and the actuarial side of things. The RAF runs largely on the fuel levy, which the rise of electric and hybrid vehicles keeps chipping away at. So this isn’t purely a claimant-friendly reform. It’s also a fix for a fund the Department itself has called unsustainable. Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) has been watching closely too, holding hearings with the RAF’s Interim Board in February 2026 as part of its enquiry into the Fund’s finances.
Practical Implications for Claimants Right Now
- Nothing has changed. Yet. RABS is still a Bill – no passing, no signature, no commencement date. Your current rights remain intact.
- What happens to existing claims is genuinely unknown. No transitional plan has been published. SCOPA has raised the question of how existing RAF liabilities would be handled once RABS arrives, but nothing is locked in.
- Don’t sit on a legitimate claim. Prescription still applies, generally three years, though specifics vary. “RABS is coming” is not a reason to delay.
- Get up-to-date advice on the RAF 1 form. It’s been tied up in Supreme Court of Appeal proceedings, and SCOPA has flagged rising claimant costs and non-compliant submissions under the newer process.
- Foreign nationals: take note. Separately from RABS, Parliament confirmed in April 2026 that the SCA upheld an interpretation that “any person” under RAF legislation isn’t limited to South African citizens.
Conclusion
The RABS revival is real, but the law itself hasn’t budged. The earlier version of the Bill would have traded the current, litigation-heavy fault system for something faster and cheaper to run, at the cost of general damages, lump-sum certainty, and much of claimants’ legal muscle. None of that is guaranteed to reappear in the revised 2026 Bill. Until it lands, the safest move is: don’t wait, don’t assume, and get advice under the Act as it stands today.
While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the writers of articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes.