AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY: Scopa finally lays criminal charges against former Road Accident Fund CEO Collins Letsoalo

The debate was inconclusive, but the vote affirmed that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will lay criminal charges against subpoena-dodging former Road Accident Fund CEO Collins Letsoalo.

We need to go back to November last year to trace the original source of the debate among the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) members when deciding whether to lay criminal charges against former Road Accident Fund (RAF) CEO Collins Letsoalo.

Scopa summoned Letsoalo to answer questions about his management decisions on 25 and 26 November 2025, but on the first day, he did not appear. Instead, his legal team, Sithi & Thabela Attorneys, issued a formal demand to the Scopa chairperson (Songezo Zibi) to “cease and desist from [the] unlawful ‘oversight inquiry’”.

They argued that Scopa’s mandate was restricted to financial accountability, while operational and governance oversight of the RAF fell exclusively under the parliamentary transport committee. The attorneys argued that proceeding would violate the audi alteram partem rule (the right to be heard) and declared that Letsoalo had “not received any summons or formal notice”.

Zibi clapped back later that evening, acknowledging the correspondence, but noting that Letsoalo had still failed to appear “as per the summons”.

As you can probably deduce, the former CEO has still not made contact with Scopa to answer its questions.

The question on the floor is whether to press on with charges. To this end, the core of the debate surrounding the decision to prosecute is the measurement of legal risk, specifically whether the summons was “duly served”. The Speaker of the National Assembly sourced independent legal counsel, who have highlighted the following risk:

Because the sheriff could not locate Letsoalo to hand-deliver the document, Parliament used a “substituted service” (read: they sent the summons via email, SMS, WhatsApp, posted it on social media, and fixed it to the gate of an alternate address).

The independent legal advice warned that strict judicial interpretation of the Act might deem substituted service legally defective, presenting a risk that “a prosecution may be unsuccessful”.

That legal risk is somewhat offset by evidence that Letsoalo had actual knowledge of the summons. This is demonstrated by the November correspondence from his lawyers and his public media interviews acknowledging the summons.

Letsoalo was demonstrably aware he was required to appear, and this could support an argument of “substantial compliance” with the Act’s objectives.

Letsoalo’s primary defence for non-a