The court ruled in favour of millions of South Africans who are not receiving the SRD grant.
Lobby groups have described the recent court ruling on the social relief of distress grant as a positive development for millions of unemployed people. On the 23rd of January, the Pretoria High Court ruled that the application processes and regulations set out by the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) for the social relief of distress (SRD) grant were unconstitutional.
“This is a win for us, people who depend on the SRD grant, because the Sassa measures excluded many unemployed young people. Some of us do not have smartphones to access and complete the application. It is not common in rural areas to have network connection. Also, people in townships were excluded too through the checking of our bank [accounts] because it was not truly reflective of an income,” said Mooketsi Diba, from the Unemployed People’s Movement (UPM).
Diba said that the movement was concerned that the measures to apply for the SRD support grant excluded many people in desperate need of income. “It is hard to watch someone waiting for R370 and then it does not come for reasons that they don’t know, while they have responsibilities waiting for them and cannot even afford their basic needs without that income,” said Diba.
Researcher from the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), Siyanda Baduza described the ruling as “meaningful” because it removes barriers preventing millions of South Africans who are unemployed and living in poverty from receiving this income support. “The ruling will massively increase the number of eligible people receiving income support. We are also especially thrilled because of the implications it has on means test and value – because we know that the value has been too little for people to truly survive on,” said Baduza.
The papers were first filed in 2023 when it was revealed that of an estimated 18-million people who live below the food poverty line and are eligible for the SRD grant, only 8-million were receiving it, according to Baduza. The IEJ and #PayTheGrants coalition acted on behalf of 75 applicants in the case who were living in extreme poverty and struggling to navigate the application process and access the SRD grant.
He continued: “In the ruling, the judge said that the value must reflect the right to food which is provided for in the constitution and tied to objective measures of addressing poverty. It calls for an increase in the value and means-test threshold which should allow more people to benefit and to benefit at a large scale.”
The IEJ also challenged delays in, or non-payment of approved grants. The judge found that, this was unconstitutional as well. Part of the order is to investigate the late and non-payment of grants. Although this directly speaks to the SRD grant, Baduza said they hope that it will also influence the administration of other grants as well.
Lead attorney on the case, Nkosinathi Sithole, from the Socio-Economic Research Institute (Seri) pointed out that one of the other important points that they argued against was the bank verification process which allows banks to check what money has passed through someone’s bank account during a month to determine their eligibility. “For example, one of the applicants is a lady whose mother passed away. During that time, members of the community made donations into her bank account, money that was spent on burial and funeral costs. Soon after, she was declined by Sassa for the SRD with no opportunity to account for what that money was for,” said Sithole.
The judge, according to Sithole, ruled that this is unfair and unreasonable based on the provisions of sections 9 and 27 of the constitution. Following the judgement, people can now bring evidence in to support their appeal after their application is declined. Those who are also not able to apply online, are able to go to their nearest designated office to apply for the SRD grant.
The summary of the judgement compiled by IEJ reads: “Only allowing applications via an online portal, and not at Sassa offices, is irrational and illegal.” “We argued that the exclusively online application process excluded applications from the poorest, given that about 22% of the population does not have any internet access according to the General Household Survey,” explained Sithole.
He added that the court made it clear that even though the grant has been recorded as a temporary grant, it is not. “The court ruled that it is a permanent grant that is implemented in terms of the Social Security Act and giving effect to section 27 of the constitution. Therefore, the argument that it is temporary and with measures there to guard against fraud and criminality, the argument can no longer fly,” he said.
Sithole also explained that all orders by the court must be implemented by the state immediately, with measures to check and ensure compliance by the state. “After requiring the state to implement the provision of this order, the applicants are given permission to go back to court on an urgent basis after they have given the state time to implement and if they fail, they can hold the state in contempt of court orders or request further finding against the state. This is by far the best checking mechanism that a court offers, when it has instructed someone to implement its findings,” said Sithole.
en