The DA wants the parliamentary inquiry into the Road Accident Fund (RAF) not to just scratch the surface, but to be a meaningful investigation into the full extent of governance failures at the institution.
The party has written to Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) chairperson Songezo Zibi proposing areas that should be covered by the parliamentary inquiry’s terms of reference.
This comes after Scopa earlier this week resolved to launch a full committee inquiry into allegations of maladministration, financial mismanagement, wasteful and reckless expenditure, and related financial misconduct at the RAF.
The decision was taken after attempts by the committee to obtain truthful, complete information from the RAF board and executive management.
DA MPs Patrick Atkinson and Chris Hunsinger said they requested Zibi to ensure that the investigation covered all of the outrageous financial mismanagement identified over the past months and years.
“It must be comprehensive and thorough, not surface-level,” Atkinson and Hunsinger said.
They said the inquiry must be aimed at uncovering corruption, maladministration, and mismanagement.
In the letter to Zibi, Atkinson said they welcomed the resolution to initiate the parliamentary inquiry into the worsening crisis at the RAF.
“However, for this inquiry to be meaningful and in the public interest, it must be comprehensive in scope. A surface-level examination will fail to address the systematic mismanagement, misconduct and abuse of public funds that have defined the RAF’s recent history,” he wrote.
Atkinson asked that the terms of reference for the inquiry include the conduct of senior RAF leadership, particularly suspended CEO Collins Letsoalo, and the misleading of Scopa by the entity’s executives, who said that Letsoalo possessed a security clearance certificate when no vetting took place.
He also said the inquiry should look into whether Letsoalo’s appointment was lawful and also touch on his efforts to undermine the Auditor-General and insistence to apply non-compliant accounting standards.
The terms of reference, Atkinson said, should also include the termination of RAF’s panel of lawyers, multiple qualified audits and Letsoalo’s unilateral introduction of additional eligibility criteria for claims.
Atkinson said RAF, which is funded to the tune of R50 billion a year by the fuel levy, remained technically insolvent while Letsoalo earned R7.1 million a year.
“South Africans deserve an entity that is transparent, accountable and able to fulfill its core mandate (by) providing fair and timely compensation to victims of road accidents.
“The DA is committed to ensuring that this inquiry results in real accountability,” Atkinson wrote in his letter.
The DA letter was in line with the decision taken by Scopa that the committee’s secretariat would prepare the terms of reference for the inquiry that will be approved by the MPs at a meeting on July 1.
Scopa had stated the issues of concern included, among others, failure to perform adequate background checks on senior management and executive appointments and refusal by the RAF to disclose to the committee where its funds were kept and for what purpose.
It had also said there was failure to appoint critical officials such as a chief claims officer, head of claims operations, head of legal, chief corporate support officer, head of people management and others.
There were also numerous whistleblower accounts relating to supply chain irregularities involving more than R1 billion.
According to Zibi, allegations pointed to failure by the board to properly oversee management’s decisions and actions in line with their statutory mandate.
“The volume of complaints and related documentary disclosures to the committee about the RAF make it necessary to examine them thoroughly, and make such recommendations as may be necessary to ensure that the institution does its work within legal and constitutional prescripts, and serves the public interest as intended.
“An inquiry will also give everyone involved or implicated the opportunity to state their case under oath, and receive a fair hearing before the committee draws its conclusions,” he said.
