Foreign nationals lodged 13 127 claims valued at R23.32 billion with the Road Accident Fund (RAF) over the past five financial years, but actual payouts amounted to less than a third of that total, Transport Minister Barbara Creecy has revealed.
Records submitted to Parliament show the Fund disbursed R6.33 billion between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2026 to settle foreign-related matters, highlighting a sharp divide between what claimants seek and what the state insurer pays.
The figures were disclosed in a written reply to uMkhonto weSizwe Party MP Sanele Mwali, who requested data on claims submitted and settled for documented and undocumented foreigners.
Creecy explained that the RAF cannot isolate payouts based on legal status.
“The Road Accident Fund claim management system does not differentiate between documented and undocumented foreign nationals,” she said. “The figures I can provide, therefore, include all foreign-related claims, along with their claimed amounts.”
She said the gross sum reflects initial legal demands rather than approved settlements. “The total rand value claimed on foreigner-related claims that were lodged over the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026 was R23.3 billion.”
According to the reply, while the value of claims fluctuated – jumping from R1.35 billion in 2023/24 to a record R8.53 billion in 2025/26 – actual settlements steadily declined. Payouts dropped from around R2 billion a year in 2021 and 2022 to well below R1 billion annually in recent years, hitting a low of R596 million in 2024/25.
The disclosure arrives amid ongoing legal battles over who qualifies for cover. The Supreme Court of Appeal previously struck down an internal RAF directive barring undocumented foreigners, ruling that Section 17(1) of the RAF Act obliges the Fund to compensate “any person” injured on South African roads by negligent driving.
The Department of Transport is challenging the ruling to curb state liabilities. Deputy Transport Minister Mkhuleko Hlengwa recently told Parliament’s transport committee that the Department appealed the decision to prevent unsustainable fiscal exposure, “We believe it was a wrong ruling, and the court could have applied laws of restriction.”
