A growing debate over the rights of foreign nationals to access South Africa’s Road Accident Fund (RAF) has triggered widespread criticism from commentators, with concerns raised about rising Afrophobic sentiment in both political and media spaces.
The controversy erupted following a recent parliamentary exchange between Acting Transport Minister Dr. Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and ActionSA Member of Parliament (MP) Alan Beesley. Beesley questioned the legality and justification of RAF payouts to foreign nationals, suggesting that taxpayer money should not be used to compensate non-citizens.
In response, Minister Ramokgopa revealed that in the 2024/25 financial year, the RAF paid out a total of R42.94 billion across 128,716 claims. Of this amount, R548 million—less than 1.5%—was paid in respect of 222 claims lodged by foreign nationals. Only 17 of these claims have been settled to date.
Despite the relatively small proportion of claims involving foreign nationals, the figures sparked alarmist coverage from some media outlets, which, according to author and social commentator Malaika Mahlatsi, misrepresented the issue and fueled xenophobic narratives.
“The true horror is not that ActionSA problematised foreign nationals receiving RAF payouts. It is that the media sensationalised and decontextualised the data to further portray migrants as undeserving of legal protections,” Mahlatsi wrote in a scathing opinion piece.
She argued that such reporting reinforces harmful stereotypes and risks normalising the exclusion and dehumanisation of foreign nationals in South Africa—many of whom contribute to the RAF through fuel levies, just like citizens.
Understanding the RAF
The Road Accident Fund is a statutory insurance scheme designed to provide compensation to victims of road accidents for injuries or loss of life, regardless of nationality. Funded through a fuel levy imposed on every litre of petrol and diesel sold in the country, the RAF applies to all road users—citizens and foreign nationals alike.
“Anyone who purchases fuel in South Africa contributes to the RAF,” noted Mahlatsi. “This includes undocumented and documented migrants who rely on public transport. To claim they don’t contribute is not only false, it’s dangerously misleading.”
Global Norms on Compensation
Mahlatsi also challenged the idea that South Africa’s compensation of foreign accident victims is an anomaly. Drawing on her experience living in Germany, she highlighted that similar systems exist across the European Union, where undocumented migrants are entitled to compensation through national guarantee funds if involved in road accidents.
EU legislation mandates that all road users, regardless of immigration status, have access to justice, medical care, and compensation—a principle that aligns with international human rights standards.
Politicisation of Migration
Critics say the RAF debate reflects a broader trend in South African politics, where migration is increasingly politicised. Afrophobic rhetoric—defined as prejudice against people of African descent—has found a platform in various legislative bodies, often manifesting in calls to exclude migrants from social and economic protections.
“Foreign nationals are consistently scapegoated for the failures of the state,” Mahlatsi argued. “But what’s especially troubling is the complicity of the media in amplifying these sentiments without interrogating the facts.”
Media Under Scrutiny
Mahlatsi’s criticism of the media was particularly pointed. She accused news outlets of failing in their responsibility to uphold factual accuracy and of abandoning journalistic integrity in favour of sensationalism.
“It is reckless for any publication, radio or television outlet to report on such stories without separating fact from fiction. It emboldens bigotry in our political institutions and places the lives of already vulnerable communities at risk,” she said.
Human Rights at Stake
At the heart of the issue, Mahlatsi contends, is a fundamental question of humanity.
“Foreign nationals, documented or undocumented, are not sub-human. They deserve legal protections and dignity for no other reason than the fact that they are human beings—just like any South African citizen.”
As the debate continues, legal experts and human rights organisations are expected to weigh in on the implications of excluding certain groups from state protections. Meanwhile, calls are growing for South Africa’s political discourse—and its media—to reflect the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and justice for all.
