Ex-attorney accused of stealing road accident fund payouts now faces fraud and witness-tampering claims
A former attorney is at the centre of explosive allegations involving the theft of Road Accident Fund payouts. Siyakudumisa Mlunguza, once trusted to manage client settlements, now stands accused of misappropriating trust funds and intimidating witnesses in an unfolding case that has shaken the legal fraternity.
Mlunguza is charged with several counts of theft relating to money paid out by the Road Accident Fund (RAF). These funds were meant to compensate accident victims, but prosecutors allege that instead of reaching their rightful beneficiaries, large sums were siphoned off. The complainants in the case include both the RAF and the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund, which exists to protect clients against misconduct by attorneys.
The case returned to the Bellville Commercial Crime Court this week, where an inquiry into his behaviour was ordered. National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Eric Ntabazalila confirmed that the matter had first been scheduled earlier in September but was delayed due to a magistrate’s unavailability.
Embed from Getty ImagesMlunguza’s first appearance was in March 2022, when he was released on warning. But the State now argues that his actions since then have escalated concerns about whether he can be trusted to remain free. According to the NPA, in November 2024 Mlunguza attempted to intimidate two State witnesses. State advocate Siphokazi Makhanda placed this incident on record in January 2025, leading the magistrate to impose strict conditions on his warning. Those terms explicitly barred him from contacting, directly or indirectly, any of the witnesses.
Despite that order, prosecutors allege that Mlunguza continued to interfere in the case. On 1 September 2025, Advocate Makhanda was alerted to fresh claims that he used the Sheriff of the High Court to harass another witness. That witness, an attorney and executor of a deceased estate tied to the RAF case, was served with a combined claim over funds due to the estate. However, the summons quickly unravelled under scrutiny. The attorney supposedly issuing it denied ever doing so, and investigators say the signature was fraudulent.
The alleged attempt to misuse legal processes to pressure a witness intensified the State’s push to revoke his release. Advocate Makhanda submitted an urgent notice in court seeking to cancel Mlunguza’s warning in terms of Section 72A of the Criminal Procedure Act. She argued that the interests of justice required the accused to be remanded in custody until the inquiry could be heard, given the risk of further interference with witnesses.
On 5 September the court agreed, ordering that Mlunguza be held in custody pending the outcome of the inquiry. He now awaits a decision on whether he will remain behind bars while the theft and fraud case continues.
The allegations strike at the heart of public trust in the legal system. Road Accident Fund payouts are intended to provide relief to victims and their families at times of hardship. If proven, the accusations that a lawyer diverted those funds for personal gain would amount to a gross abuse of professional responsibility.
The case also exposes wider concerns about accountability within the legal profession. The involvement of the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund highlights the safeguards designed to protect clients, but also underscores the seriousness of breaches when they occur.
For Mlunguza, once a practising lawyer, the fallout is profound. He has not only lost his standing but also faces the possibility of a lengthy prison term if convicted. The fraud allegations, combined with claims of witness intimidation and falsified court documents, paint a picture of an attorney who crossed ethical and legal boundaries in pursuit of self-interest.
As the inquiry unfolds, the outcome will determine not only Mlunguza’s future but also send a wider message about the consequences of betraying client trust. With the RAF and Fidelity Fund among the complainants, the case stands as a stark reminder that misconduct in handling client money will be met with the full force of the law