RAF vs RABS: A Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

The Road Accident Benefit Scheme (RABS) is back on the legislative agenda.

This is a reversal, not a simple resumption. Since 2023, government had been working on a different fix: amending the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Act. In June 2025 it dropped that approach in favour of reviving RABS.

Government has since confirmed that it intends to introduce the RABS Bill to Parliament. The policy design is still being finalised.

Here is what has changed, how the two systems compare, and what the proposal could mean for anyone injured on South African roads.

What has changed since Parliament rejected the original RABS Bill?

A draft RABS Bill was first published for comment in 2013. The version tabled in Parliament followed in 2017.

It proposed replacing the RAF’s fault-based compensation model with a no-fault scheme, built around defined, structured benefits.

Opposition was widespread. Legal professionals, disability groups, medical experts and opposition parties all objected. In 2020 the National Assembly voted against the Bill, and the Transport Committee recommended amending the RAF Act instead.

The RAF Amendment Bill detour

Attention then shifted to the RAF Act itself.

A draft RAF Amendment Bill was released for public comment in 2023. It proposed turning the Fund into a social benefits scheme and removing attorneys from the claims process.

More than 19 000 comments were submitted, the overwhelming majority opposing it. As late as 2024, government still described the amendments as being at an advanced stage.

Then it changed course. In June 2025, Deputy Transport Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa told Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Transport that the amendment route had been halted. RABS would be revived in its place.

The reversal has drawn strong criticism.

Kirstie Haslam, a director at DSC Attorneys, told Independent Media in July 2025: “RABS replaces a broken system with another flawed one. It doesn’t fix the root causes of RAF’s dysfunction, and worse, it strips victims of access to justice by capping payouts and removing the right to claim for general damages.”

Where the Bill stands now

Two developments in 2026 set out the current position:

• February 2026: the Department of Transport told Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts that an updated draft Bill had been prepared and circulated to other departments. It would go to Cabinet for noting before public consultation begins.

• May 2026: Hlengwa said government intends to introduce the Bill to Parliament during 2026, with a gap analysis and business case being finalised. Transport Minister Barbara Creecy said the department is also researching a hybrid funding model, combining private and public contributions.

The updated Bill has not been published. Until it is, the detail of the scheme remains uncertain.

RAF vs RABS: how the two systems compare

The table below sets the current law against RABS as it is presently understood.

Issue	RAF (current law)	RABS (as proposed)
Basis of a claim	Fault-based. You must prove that another road user was negligent. Nothing is payable if you were solely to blame.	No-fault. Compensation would not depend on proving negligence. A driver who caused a crash would qualify on the same basis as an innocent victim.
How compensation is paid	Lump sum payments.	Structured benefits, paid as annuities.
Limits on amounts	Loss of income and loss of support are capped per year. The cap was R160 000 in 2008 and is adjusted quarterly for inflation (currently R390 664). Other heads of damages are not capped, although there is a threshold test to qualify for an award of general damages.	Capped, with a schedule of defined benefits set out in the Act itself.
General damages (pain and suffering)	Can be claimed where injuries are assessed as serious.	Excluded under the rejected Bill. Not confirmed for the updated draft.
Right to sue the negligent driver	Limited. Solely retained in respect of emotional shock claims for secondary victims.	The rejected Bill excluded the common law liability of drivers who would otherwise be liable for damages.
Loss of income	Claimable on the basis of your earning capacity, subject to the cap.	Restricted. The department has told Parliament that claims would be limited to claimants under 60.
Medical costs	Past expenses are paid out. Future expenses are covered by a statutory undertaking.	Paid directly to contracted providers at prescribed tariffs under the rejected Bill.
Non-citizens	Anyone injured on South African roads may claim.	Limited to citizens and lawfully present foreign nationals. Visitors would need travel insurance.
Legal costs	Recoverable. Attorneys commonly act on a no win, no fee basis.	The rejected Bill made no provision for recovering legal costs, and limited access to court.

Note: the updated RABS Bill has not been released. Entries referring to “the rejected Bill” reflect the 2017 draft that Parliament turned down, and may change. Entries describing government’s current intentions come from statements made to Parliament during 2026.

Will future accident victims still be able to sue?

This is the question that matters most. The answer is that it is not yet settled.

What government has confirmed

Statements to Parliament in 2026 confirm that the revived Bill is intended to provide for:

• a no-fault framework, removing the need to prove who caused a crash
• capped benefits, with a schedule of defined benefits in the Act
• payment of benefits as annuities rather than lump sums
• restrictions on claims by foreign nationals, including a travel insurance requirement
• limits on loss-of-income claims by claimants aged 60 and over.

What is still an assumption

The following featured in the rejected Bill, but have not been confirmed for the updated draft:

• the exclusion of general damages for pain, suffering and disfigurement
• the exclusion of the common law right to sue a negligent driver for any shortfall
• the specific benefit caps, including an annual ceiling on loss-of-income benefits
• the removal of any entitlement to recover legal costs, and restricted access to court.

The 2017 Bill expressly set out to exclude the liability of people who would otherwise be liable for damages at common law. Government has also said repeatedly that curbing litigation is central to the reform.

Together, those point strongly towards the right to sue being removed again. Nothing is certain, though, until the Bill is published for comment.

Frequently asked questions

Has RABS become law?

No. RABS is a proposal. The RAF Act remains the law governing road accident claims in South Africa, and the updated Bill has not yet been introduced to Parliament.

Will my existing RAF claim be affected?

Not directly. In February 2026, the acting Director-General of Transport told Parliament that legislation is generally not applied retrospectively.

On that basis, existing RAF Act claims would continue under the current law, with RABS applying to future accidents.

Some committee members have pushed for retrospective application to be reconsidered, so this remains a live debate. For now, a claim lodged under the RAF Act continues under the RAF Act.

When could RABS come into effect?

No date has been set.

Even once a bill is introduced, it must go through public consultation, committee deliberation, votes in both houses of Parliament, presidential assent and a separate commencement date. The previous attempt took several years and ended in rejection.

Why does government want to replace the RAF?

The RAF is in serious financial difficulty. It is funded almost entirely by a fuel levy, which is not enough to cover its liabilities.

The growing uptake of electric and hybrid vehicles also threatens that revenue base over time.

The Department of Transport describes the current model as ineffective, inefficient and unsustainable, pointing to high administrative costs, uncapped benefits and an adversarial litigation environment. Road crashes are estimated to cost the country between R205 billion and R260 billion a year.

The current position

RABS is a proposal, not law. Until Parliament passes new legislation and it is brought into force, the RAF Act governs your claim.

That includes the right to claim general damages for serious injuries, and the right to receive compensation as a lump sum.

If you have been injured in a road accident, do not delay on the strength of proposed reform. The existing time limits still apply: three years from the date of the accident where the driver is identified, and two years for hit-and-run claims. See our article on RAF claim periods for more detail.

Any advice you act on should be based on the law as it stands, not on what may change.