RAF exposed for gifting R5.2m in vehicles amid corruption scandal
Public Funds
SIU Head Advocate Andy Mothibi and his investigative team presented findings so severe that they not only question the RAF’s viability but also implicate the institution’s leadership structures in what appears to be a coordinated erosion of public accountability.
Image: File
IN A damning parliamentary briefing that laid bare years of maladministration, financial recklessness, and institutional decay, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) delivered a scathing indictment of the Road Accident Fund (RAF), a state entity mandated to compensate victims of road accidents but now crippled by what investigators describe as “systemic governance deficiencies” and a “breakdown in strategic leadership”.
Speaking before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) on October 10, SIU Head Advocate Andy Mothibi and his investigative team presented findings so severe that they not only question the RAF’s viability but also implicate the institution’s leadership structures in what appears to be a coordinated erosion of public accountability.
At the heart of the SIU’s findings is a stark conclusion: the RAF’s governance structures have not merely failed, but these structural weaknesses have actively enabled corruption and financial mismanagement. “The investigation identified systemic governance deficiencies at RAF, which contributed significantly to maladministration, financial instability, and operational inefficiencies,” Mothibi told Scopa. “These failures reflected a breakdown in both strategic leadership and corporate governance structures.”
The consequences have been catastrophic. From 2018 to the second quarter of 2023, the RAF accumulated R4.78 billion in default judgments, largely because it abandoned its panel of attorneys and failed to defend itself in court. This decision, described by committee members as “reckless”, directly contravened Section 51 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), which obliges accounting authorities to prevent “irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure”.
Yet the financial haemorrhage did not stop there. The SIU uncovered R141.8 million in irregular payments related to the corporate panel of attorneys, payments made without board approval and exceeding the annual contract ceiling of R10m. Another R66.1m was spent on a Johannesburg Regional Office building through a “flawed procurement process”.
And in one of the most bizarre revelations, the RAF handed over R5.2m worth of vehicles to a service provider, Fleet Data, without receiving any payment, allegedly to prevent the assets from being attached in litigation.
“That’s correct,” confirmed SIU principal forensic investigator Msubu Maseko when pressed by Scopa Chairperson Songezo Zibi. “In effect, some company has been gifted vehicles to the value of R5.2m.”
Perhaps even more troubling than the financial irregularities is the culture of obstruction that permeated the RAF during the SIU’s probe. Investigators revealed that RAF management issued a directive requiring employees to route their “right of reply” responses, critical legal submissions in the SIU process, through RAF management “such that responses to the SIU were well coordinated”.
Mothibi called this directive “unacceptable” and said it “may amount to interference” with a statutory investigation. “The SIU noted with concern a directive issued by the RAF to its employees in respect of the right of reply… The Directive is thus viewed by the SIU to have a direct compromise to the investigation.”
The interference extended beyond paperwork. The SIU was forced to open a criminal case against a senior RAF executive for refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena, a case that remains active. The SIU noted that senior officials’ conduct raised concerns, but specific individuals are not named or directly accused here due to ongoing proceedings.
Even suspended employees were reportedly discouraged from cooperating. “Some RAF officials communicated to the SIU that they might get into trouble in terms of their suspension if they revealed information to the SIU or any statutory body,” Zibi said, to which Maseko responded: “That is correct.”
The investigation also uncovered troubling financial flows involving executives. Maseko disclosed that monies were paid to family members through a family trust, with initial findings pointing to at least R74 000 in such transfers. These findings relate to systemic oversight issues rather than confirmed personal wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, a systemic failure to perform basic bank reconciliations allowed duplicate payments totalling R340m to slip through unnoticed. The mechanism was simple yet devastating: once the RAF settled a claim, attorneys — fearing non-payment beyond the statutory 180-day window — would obtain writs of execution and attach RAF bank accounts. Because the RAF failed to reconcile its accounts, it would then pay the same claim twice.
“The RAF merely released the payment and only realised after the fact that they duplicated the payment,” Maseko said.
Even more alarming, the SIU is investigating unauthorised bank accounts, including accounts held at Investec Bank, into which funds were allegedly siphoned. “There were other alternative bank accounts which were referred to for criminality,” Maseko said. “The matter was at an advanced stage with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)… where there were monies syphoned into those accounts.” Amounts in these accounts ranged from R1m to R100m, he said.
Central to the crisis was the RAF Board’s abdication of its fiduciary duties. Contracts were approved post facto, not to correct irregularities, but to “legitimise the process of ratification” for audit purposes. “The ratification was not done for the purposes of correcting the procurement process,” Maseko said. “This process was initiated by the procurement department… under the care of the board chairperson.”
When asked whether the board chair knew this was a sham, Maseko replied bluntly: “From investigations, the board chair was aware of what had been done.”
The board’s dysfunction extended to its oversight committees. “Governance committees, including the audit and risk committees, were dysfunctional or lacked the independence and capacity to provide effective oversight,” the SIU said, a finding that chairperson Zibi pressed for elaboration on. Maseko pointed to repeated instances of ratification instead of prevention: “All these matters were riddled with ratification… coupled with the issues on the panel of attorneys and the failure of the board to play oversight.”
Adding to the drama is the prolonged evasion of the RAF’s former chief executive. Since June 2024, the SIU has struggled to secure his cooperation. An initial meeting in November 2024 yielded no sworn affidavit. Subsequent hearings were derailed by legal objections, including a demand that the SIU’s senior counsel recuse himself over a prior RAF matter.
“The former CEO contested and requested he be afforded legal representation of the same status,” Zodwa Xesibe, the chief national investigations officer, said. The RAF has since agreed to assist him with access to records and legal representation, though it remains unclear whether the Fund is footing his legal bills.
“He had alleged that he did not have access to his work laptop… RAF confirmed this was not true,” Mothibi said. With those issues resolved, the hearing is set to reconvene soon, but only after more than a year of delays.
When reached for comment, RAF head of corporate communications, McIntosh Polela, said evidence regarding these matters had already been presented to Scopa, and additional information may emerge during the hearings.
“To prevent the RAF from conducting a parallel inquiry through the media, the Fund will not be commenting on matters which arise from the inquiry and instead encourages you to follow the proceedings. Meanwhile, the RAF has been cooperating with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and will continue to do so,” he said.
Committee members expressed shock and outrage. Action SA’s Alan Beesley called a prior RAF appearance before Scopa “the most shambolic meeting I had attended in my life” and questioned why the board had not been fired. The ANC’s Tintswalo Bila asked whether executives were “interfering with investigations”, a charge the SIU confirmed.
The DA’s Farhat Essack zeroed in on the human capital failures: “There seemed to me to be an entire staff complement which was derelict and unable to perform basic tasks.” He called for a full performance audit, a suggestion that Mothibi endorsed: “There was a clear question on the quality of employees… especially in the financial management department.”
As Scopa prepares to summon the RAF board to account for its “level of fiduciary responsibility,” the SIU continues its work, finalising disciplinary referrals, pursuing criminal charges, and pushing for systemic reforms. But as Beesley lamented: “It’s pointless to have these reports if they are not acted upon.”
In Mothibi’s words: “These systemic deficiencies compromised the Fund’s ability to deliver effectively on its mandate to compensate road accident victims.”