A parliamentary investigation has laid bare a trail of soaring costs, lost court battles and unchecked spending at the Road Accident Fund (RAF), raising serious governance concerns.
The latest draft report by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa), informed by findings from the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), exposes widespread failures that led to growing case backlogs alongside billions of rand paid to law firms.
According to the report, the RAF’s average cost of settling claims jumped by 151.6%, rising from R114 008 in 2018/19 to R286 825 in the 2023/24 financial year.
This increase stemmed largely from case backlogs and the fund’s failure to defend itself in court after dissolving its claim-related panel of attorneys.
The neglect resulted in default judgments amounting to R15.7 billion for costs and fees over four years. In the Pretoria High Court alone, 7 559 default judgments were handled between April 2022 and May 2024.
Addressing the committee, Parliament’s legal adviser Fatima Ebrahim said:
“The litigation we had zoomed in on included the litigation against the AG (Auditor-General) about the accounting standard, and the ultimate futile litigation against Sunshine Hospital, and then the legal costs arising from claim litigation.”
“Other parts of the report zoom into specific legal costs around these areas and particular cases, and together they paint quite a clear picture of the fact that the RAF has failed to effectively and efficiently manage the legal affairs of the fund, and this has a direct financial adverse impact.”
Instead of relying on law firms on the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) panel sourced through National Treasury regulations, the RAF funnelled nearly all its work to another law firm.
The report also highlighted massive budget overruns. While the GEPF panel contract was capped at R10 million annually, the RAF spent R26.6 million in just the first seven months, exceeding its budget by 166% and violating supply chain management rules.
Between 2020 and 2023, 90% of all legal work was awarded to a single firm, Malatji & Co Attorneys, which was not on the GEPF panel of attorneys.
The Sandton-based law firm, led by managing director Tebogo Malatji, states on its website that it is a majority black-owned law firm servicing clients in public law, commercial litigation and other fields of law.
“Given that the GEPF panel appears to have been large and ought to have been adequate enough for the needs of the RAF, yet (the firm), which was not on the GEPF panel, was subsequently included. In addition, (the firm) then went on to receive almost 90% of the work in the period,” the report states.
The RAF subsequently expanded its corporate legal panel to 43 law firms and included Malatji & Co Attorneys.
In 2023, the firm was paid R36.85 million of the R76.02 million paid to panel lawyers. In 2024, it secured R55.88 million out of a total R104.08 million.
“The RAF did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the allocation of work was undertaken in a fair, transparent and consistent manner across the appointed Panel of Attorneys,” the report states.
Legal firm responds
In response to the committee’s findings, Malatji & Co Attorneys provided its submission to the committee last week.
In its submission, the firm took issue with the claim that it was not on the panel of attorneys used by the RAF.
The firm stated that it applied for and was appointed to the GEPF panel of attorneys in 2018 under its then-trading name, Malatji Kanyane. In 2019, following the departure of Moeti Kanyane, the firm changed its name to Malatji & Co.
The firm maintained that this name change did not affect any existing contracts, including its standing on the GEPF panel.
It added that it was subsequently invited to participate in the RAF panel in 2020 and was provided with a service-level agreement. However, this document was issued under its former trading name, Malatji Kanyane.
“The Scopa draft report relies on the draft report presented by the SIU. We wish to advise that our firm has not been approached nor requested to provide any evidence to the SIU. The allegations in the draft report by the SIU have not been tested. We have thus far not been provided with a right of reply on the SIU’s draft report, which we have previously requested in our letter of 14 October 2025,” the firm stated.
Regarding the financial figures featured in the inquiry, the firm noted that the draft report failed to differentiate between fees paid for direct legal services rendered by the firm and disbursements collected for onward payment to third parties.
“Considering the fact that there is no differentiation, the draft report creates the impression that our firm somehow unduly benefited from doing work for the RAF.
“We kindly request that Scopa amend its draft report to clarify monies received by our firm as payment for services rendered, and monies received for onward payment to third parties to prevent the derogatory impression that our firm somehow unduly benefited from the RAF,” the letter read.
ntsikelelo.qoyo@nationalmg.co.za