The 300-page document, which aims to standardise the calculation of settlement values for claims against the Road Accident Fund (RAF), has been widely criticised for its lack of crucial detail. The proposal covers claims such as loss of earnings, loss of support, and general damages, but experts argue that it fails to account for the complexity of individual cases.

Kristie Haslam, a partner at DSC Attorneys, expressed serious reservations about the proposal's underlying premise. She stated, “The proposal refers to the RAF as a 'social benefit scheme,' which is completely incorrect. The RAF Act is not a social benefits scheme. It is designed to provide compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents, not social welfare." She continued, “The act clearly states that its objective is to provide compensation for loss or damage caused by the wrongful driving of motor vehicles. This proposal completely misinterprets the intent of the law.”

The proposal has also reignited debate over the role of attorneys in RAF claims. Critics have suggested that law firms profit excessively from these claims, sometimes fraudulently. However, Haslam strongly countered these claims, saying, “Without legal representation, claimants risk being undercompensated or, worse, having their claims dismissed entirely due to procedural errors, such as missed deadlines or failure to submit claims on time."

The proposal’s emphasis on statistical models for calculating compensation has raised further concerns. Haslam warned, “The current system allows for a careful, individualised assessment of each claimant’s circumstances. This new approach, which uses algorithms, completely disregards the principle of individualised justice. You could end up with two victims with entirely different situations receiving the same compensation, simply because it is calculated by a computer model.” She added, “This could lead to unfair outcomes for those who deserve tailored compensation based on their unique circumstances.”

--ChannelAfrica--