In October 2024, the Pretoria High Court will review a critical case challenging the rules governing South Africa’s Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, currently set at R370 per month.
Initiated by #PayTheGrants and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), this case focuses on the grant’s accessibility, eligibility criteria, and income verification practices. Respondents in the case include the Department of Social Development (DSD), SASSA, and the Ministry of Finance.
Background on the SRD Grant
The SRD grant was introduced in May 2020 as a temporary relief measure to support unemployed individuals not receiving any other form of assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Initially set at R350, the grant was designed to last for six months but has been extended multiple times due to continued economic hardship. In April 2023, the monthly amount was raised to R370.
To be eligible for the SRD grant, individuals must have an income below R625 monthly, including any financial support from family or friends.
However, the online-only application process and broad income definitions have excluded many who need the assistance, prompting legal action. #PayTheGrants and the IEJ argue that the current regulations unfairly limit access and fail to consider the economic realities facing recipients, leading to the upcoming legal review.
Key Arguments by Petitioners
#PayTheGrants and the IEJ challenge the current rules based on five primary points, each addressing perceived inequities and constitutional concerns:
- Definition of Income
The petitioners argue that the government’s definition of “income” includes informal support from family and friends, unfairly excluding those without formal earnings. They propose that only income from formal employment, business activities, or investments should count toward eligibility. - Eligibility Threshold
Petitioners believe the current income cap of R625 is outdated, failing to reflect inflation and increased living costs. They are advocating for an increase in both the grant amount and the eligibility threshold. - Database Verification
The government relies on various databases—such as those from the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS)—to verify applicant income. Petitioners argue that these systems are often outdated or inaccurate, leading to the wrongful exclusion of qualified applicants. They contend this reliance is unconstitutional and want a more accurate, fair verification process. - Online-Only Applications
Unlike other social grants, SRD grant applications can only be submitted online, which petitioners say unfairly excludes those without reliable internet access. They argue for in-person application options to make the grant more accessible. - Limitations in Appeal Process
The current appeals process does not allow applicants to submit new evidence, which petitioners argue is unfair. They are pushing for reforms that would enable beneficiaries to present additional documentation or information when appealing a denied application.
Government’s Defense
The DSD, SASSA, and the Ministry of Finance have outlined their defense, addressing the petitioners’ concerns in a structured response:
- Online Applications: SASSA and DSD defend the online-only application method as both efficient and accessible, noting that it streamlines the process for millions without requiring in-person visits to overwhelmed SASSA offices.
- Database Verification: Government agencies maintain that their reliance on multiple databases ensures applicants do not receive duplicate benefits from other programs, an approach aimed at preventing fraud and conserving resources.
- Budget Constraints: SASSA argues that budget limitations make the current eligibility threshold necessary. Allowing more applicants could strain resources and lead to logistical challenges in administration.
- Appeal Process Efficiency: The DSD claims that the existing 90-day appeal process is sufficient, arguing that adding new evidence would slow processing times and create an administrative backlog.
- Economic Concerns: The Treasury has cautioned that changing grant criteria could have severe financial implications, urging the court to allow DSD time to adjust policies if any regulations are overturned to prevent budgetary strain.
Comparative Analysis of Petitioners’ and Government’s Positions
| Issue | Petitioners’ Position | Government’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of Income | Only formal income (employment, business, investments) should count | Inclusive definition prevents informal support abuse |
| Eligibility Threshold | Raise threshold to reflect inflation | Current threshold is necessary due to limited budget |
| Database Verification | Verification process is unreliable | Essential to prevent fraud |
| Application Process | Allow in-person applications | Online process is more efficient |
| Appeal Process | Permit new evidence submission | Existing 90-day appeal process is adequate |
Implications of the Court Ruling
The upcoming court decision is likely to set a significant precedent for South Africa’s social security programs, potentially impacting millions of grant recipients.
If the petitioners’ arguments are upheld, the ruling could force the government to reform the SRD grant to make it more accessible, with changes to eligibility, verification, and application methods. These reforms could benefit a larger population of vulnerable individuals while also challenging the logistical and economic limitations currently in place.
The court’s decision must balance the need to make social relief accessible to those in need with the practical realities of administering the program within a limited budget. As both sides present their arguments, the Pretoria High Court’s judgment will shape the future of social assistance in South Africa, potentially redefining the balance between accessibility and sustainability for the country’s welfare programs.
