Axed soldier’s 15-year fight for compensation
Army vehicle crash has left life of former paramedic in tatters
A former defence force employee who lost her unborn child and was left paralysed in a military vehicle crash has vowed to continue a 15-year campaign for compensation.
Fikile Moeketsi, 49, who was stationed at the Bluff military base in Durban, says attempts to seek compensation from the South African National Defence Force have been frustrating and challenging.
Moeketsi, who was recruited in 2008 as a paramedic, was injured in November 2009 when the 23-seater military vehicle she was travelling in from Pretoria to Durban collided with a truck. Eight of her colleagues were killed. They were all returning from a paramedics’ training course.
Moeketsi suffered a head injury, fractures to her spinal bones and injuries to her spinal cord, a rib fracture and hip dislocation, leaving her permanently paraplegic. She was in hospital for almost a year. Moeketsi was seven months pregnant at the time and lost the baby. She is now unable to have children due to her injuries.
“After that accident my life completely changed and I was never the same person again, my life took a turn to hell. I can’t have children any more and I didn’t even bury my child because I was in hospital.”
Moeketsi said in 2012 she was telephonically dismissed by the SANDF and her salary was frozen. She wasn’t paid out any compensation.
“Superiors told me that I needed to apply to the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for compensation for my injuries. However, my application was refused because RAF doesn’t approve claims from SANDF members.
“On the other hand, SANDF also doesn’t want to compensate me, saying I was still a ‘reserve ’— yet I was in their vehicle when I got injured. I have exhausted all my options to get what is due to me, but all efforts have been in vain as no-one wants to listen to my case,” said Moeketsi.
In its letter to Moeketsi dated October 2013, the RAF cited liability exclusions in a section of the RAF Act that relates to passengers travelling unofficially in a military vehicle.
“This section provides that if a person makes use of any vehicle which is the property of the department of defence and as such is injured, no claim may be instituted against the defence force. The RAF is, therefore, not liable for the damages you sustained in the accident and will be unable to compensate you for the reasons mentioned above,” said the RAF.
Moeketsi then lodged a complaint concerning her lump-sum compensation to the military ombud who referred her to the chief human resources office for further investigation.
She said the ombud told her to follow up with the admiral’s office, but they referred her back to the military ombud for feedback.
While fighting for compensation, she challenged the army for dismissing her and in 2013 she was reinstated as an admin worker at the Bluff base. She was also given transport to take her to and from work daily (from Pinetown, west of Durban), which according to Moeketsi, would not come on some days due to “unavailability of a driver”. From 2013 to 2022 she was subjected to conditions which were not conducive for a disabled person, Moeketsi said. “I did not have private space to assist or clean myself whenever I had emergencies.” She said senior officers had told her that when she wanted to change her diapers, she should lay cardboard on the floor of the toilet “and clean myself lying on the toilet floor”.
“I was not even provided with a bin to dump used diapers. Instead, I was told to take my used diapers, keep them in my bag, and take them home with me. I complied. I was charged R800 to get a private space to change in, which was to be deducted from my monthly salary, which I perceived as unfair,” said Moeketsi.
Moeketsi is now living with relatives who help her from time to time.
She faced challenges in accessing transport and other facilities and last year was dismissed for missing work for more than 30 days.
Moeketsi said this was because her transport didn’t arrive and she couldn’t afford an alternative.
“I do not want to work for the SANDF any more, all I want now is compensation for the accident. I believe from that I will be able to sustain myself, my family and also be able to provide myself with all the necessities I need for my condition,” she told the Sunday Times.
Moeketsi said she needed a helper but was unable to afford one as she survives on a pension which she says is not enough to cover her needs, including food and medication.
Moeketsi said she had approached an attorney but due to a lack of response from SANDF officials, the attorney pulled out.
Defence department spokesperson Siphiwe Dlamini said the matter “deserved a thorough investigation” with the human resources division to answer the allegations.
“I will be consulting with relevant senior officials ... I would like to request that you give us a chance to consult internally [so we can] resolve it,” said Dlamini.
Spokesperson for the defence minister Amos Phago said the matter was “indeed serious” but did not respond further.
RAF spokesperson McIntosh Polela told the Sunday Times there was a limitation clause affecting soldiers.
“Members of the SANDF are affected by section 18 of the RAF Act. The principle is that there is a duty on the claimant to first claim from the SANDF in terms of the Defence Act.
“Based on the payout, the claimant can then potentially recover from the RAF any difference between the SANDF payout and what RAF would have paid if this limitation did not exist.”