The Pretoria High Court is set to hear a pivotal case challenging the current regulations governing South Africa’s Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, which currently provides beneficiaries with R370 per month. This lawsuit, spearheaded by the advocacy group #PayTheGrants and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), argues that the SRD grant’s eligibility requirements and application procedures violate constitutional rights and exacerbate inequalities.
The respondents in this case include the Department of Social Development (DSD), the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA), and the Ministry of Finance.
SASSA’s R370/Month Grant Rules
The South African government introduced the SRD grant in May 2020 to help people cope with the financial difficulties brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Originally, the grant provided R350 per month and aimed to support unemployed individuals without any other social assistance.
Despite being planned for a six-month period, the grant has been extended several times due to South Africa’s ongoing economic struggles. In April 2023, the monthly grant amount was increased to R370.
Eligibility Criteria:
- Income Cap: The grant is accessible to individuals making a monthly income of less than R625, including any support from family or friends.
- Application Process: Applications are conducted exclusively online, which has raised concerns about accessibility for individuals without reliable internet access.
Criticisms:
- Overly Broad Definition of Income: The current regulations consider all forms of financial support, including help from family and friends, which excludes many potential recipients.
- Online Application Limitation: The online-only application process excludes individuals who lack access to the Internet or the necessary digital skills to apply.
Legal Challenge by #PayTheGrants and the IEJ
#PayTheGrants and the IEJ argue that the current SRD grant regulations are unconstitutional and fail to address the economic realities most applicants face. Their lawsuit seeks reforms to make the grant more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized groups.
Core Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners are focusing on several key issues:
- Broad Definition of Income:
- The petitioners are claiming that the government’s definition of “income” is overly broad because it includes financial assistance from relatives and friends.
- Proposal: Only earnings from employment, business activities, or investments should be considered when determining eligibility.
- Eligibility Threshold:
- The current income threshold of R625 does not account for inflation and the rising cost of living.
- Advocacy: The petitioners call for an increase in both the grant amount and the eligibility threshold to reflect economic conditions better.
- Database Verification Problems:
- Using various government databases, such as those from SARS, NSFAS, and UIF, to verify income is seen as inaccurate and sometimes excludes legitimate applicants.
- Request: The petitioners seek to declare the current verification process unconstitutional due to its unreliability.
- Online-Only Application Process:
- The petitioners criticize the online-only application system, stating that it discriminates against those without internet access.
- Request: They argue for introducing in-person applications to ensure equal access to the SRD grant.
- Appeal Process:
- The current appeal process does not allow applicants to submit new evidence, which the petitioners argue is irrational and unfair.
- Request: They are seeking reforms to the appeal process to make it more transparent and accessible, including submitting new supporting documents during the appeals phase.
Government’s Defense
The government, led by the DSD, SASSA, and the Ministry of Finance, has mounted a detailed defense of the SRD grant’s regulations.
- Efficiency of the Online Application Process:
- The government maintains that the online application system is efficient and user-friendly, eliminating the need for physical visits to SASSA offices.
- Claim: The digital process reduces the administrative burden on both applicants and the agency.
- Justification for Database Verification:
- SASSA defends the use of multiple databases, arguing that they help prevent fraudulent claims and ensure that beneficiaries do not receive multiple grants from various sources.
- Claim: This cross-referencing is necessary to maintain the integrity of the program.
- Resource Constraints:
- SASSA emphasizes the constraints of its human resources and cautions that a manual application procedure might inundate the agency, resulting in delays in service delivery and potential staff strikes.
- Argument: A more labour-intensive process could hamper the agency’s ability to provide timely assistance.
- Economic Concerns:
- The Ministry of Finance has raised concerns about the potential economic implications of any court ruling invalidating current regulations.
- Request: If the court finds any rules unconstitutional, the government requests time to amend them so that they do not cause immediate budgetary strain.
Comparative Analysis: Petitioners vs. Government Positions
| Issue | Petitioners’ Position | Government’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of Income | Limit income to earnings from employment, business, or investments. | Include all financial support to capture a broad range of incomes. |
| Eligibility Threshold | Increase the threshold to account for inflation. | Maintain the current threshold due to budget constraints. |
| Database Verification | Current verification methods are inaccurate and exclusionary. | Necessary to prevent fraud and ensure only qualified individuals benefit. |
| Application Process | Allow in-person applications to ensure access for all. | Online applications are efficient and accessible to most people. |
| Appeal Process | Reform to allow submission of new evidence during appeals. | The current process is fair, with a 90-day resolution period. |
Implications of the Court Hearing
The outcome of the upcoming court hearing is important, as it could reshape how South Africa administers social grants like the SRD. The ruling could have wide-reaching consequences for millions of South Africans who depend on this financial support. A decision in favor of the petitioners could lead to a more inclusive social security system, whereas a decision supporting the government may maintain the status quo. Regardless, this case could set a legal precedent for future reforms in South Africa’s social safety net.
Click the link to know more