Scopa Draft Report Exposes 'Parallel Management' and Staff Purges at the Road Accident Fund

Parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) has released a draft report detailing severe governance failures at the Road Accident Fund (RAF) under former CEO Collins Letsoalo. The findings reveal a pattern of staff purges, irregular appointments, and a leadership structure that bypassed official protocols, raising serious questions about accountability in a critical state institution.

What did the Scopa inquiry find at the RAF?

The months-long inquiry focused on the RAF's governance, financial management, and administration. The draft report, which covers the period from 2019 to 2025, highlights how an organisational structure review in 2021, initiated after Letsoalo's arrival, left key senior positions vacant for extended periods. These vacancies were then filled by specialists recruited directly into the CEO's office, a move the committee says created a 'parallel management structure'.

These specialists were not merely advisors. According to the report, they exercised authority within operational divisions and were central to major policy decisions. This included an accounting policy change that resulted in the understatement of the Claims Liability by more than R300 billion.

How many RAF employees were suspended or fired?

The report documents a troubling trend of prolonged suspensions and terminations. Between April 2020 and June 2025, a total of 188 employees were placed on suspension. Of these, 35 remained on suspension, with some cases dragging on for more than four years, far exceeding the prescribed six-month limit.

Furthermore, 136 employees were terminated following their suspensions. The report notes with concern that some terminations were successfully contested at the CCMA and the Labour Court, yet the RAF continued to challenge the matters and did not reinstate the workers. This has led to ongoing litigation and claims for reinstatement.

What role did 'specialists' play in the RAF's leadership?

The recruitment of these specialists was a key focus of the inquiry. The report states that their appointments were not always made in compliance with the RAF's policies and standard operating procedures. It further alleges that the recruitment process was influenced by Letsoalo's pre-existing preferences for specific individuals.

'The recruitment of several specialists was influenced by Mr Letsoalo's pre-existing preferences for specific individuals, creating the appearance that the recruitment process was conducted to legitimise predetermined appointments rather than to facilitate a fair and competitive recruitment process,' the report reads.

This practice, the committee observed, allowed specialists to exercise authority within operational divisions, effectively creating a shadow structure that bypassed the official chain of command.

What about Letsoalo's security clearance and the RAF's legal costs?

The draft report also reveals that despite Letsoalo's claims to the committee that he had security clearance, he had not submitted the required documents to the State Security Agency (SSA) for vetting. This raises further concerns about oversight and due process at the highest level of the organisation.

Additionally, the report highlights a sharp increase in legal expenditure linked to labour matters. Legal costs from three law firms rose from R2.23 million in 2020 to R8.34 million in 2021 and R22.21 million in 2022, as the RAF contested terminations and suspensions.

What happens next with the Scopa report?

The draft report on governance and human resources is part of a broader investigation. Scopa chairperson Songezo Zibi confirmed that a separate report will be tabled regarding the RAF's use of external lawyers and the millions spent on legal fees.

'We will then put the evidence that has been gathered before the people who have been implicated before we make our recommendations and then refer it to the National Assembly,' Zibi said.

The final report must still be tabled before the National Assembly for adoption. For many South Africans, this inquiry is a stark reminder of the systemic challenges that persist within state institutions, and the ongoing need for accountability and reform to serve the public interest, not the interests of a few.