The Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, was created to help alleviate extreme poverty and hunger. Initially set at R350, the grant was increased to R370 in April 2023. However, the grant’s eligibility criteria and application process have sparked controversy, leading to a legal challenge by #PayTheGrants and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ). This case will be heard in the Pretoria High Court on 29 and 30 October 2023.
Court Challenge Ahead for R370 Monthly Social Grant
The challenge focuses on the rules governing the R370-per-month SRD grant. In 2023, #PayTheGrants and the IEJ filed a legal case claiming the regulations unfairly exclude many eligible recipients. The Minister of Social Development, the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA), and the Minister of Finance are named as respondents in the case.
SRD Grant Background
Initially introduced in May 2020 as a temporary six-month measure, the SRD grant was intended to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. It has since been extended yearly, increasing to R370 in April 2023.
Eligibility Criteria
To qualify for the SRD grant, individuals must earn no more than R625 per month. SASSA monitors applicants’ bank accounts monthly to verify income levels.
Court Arguments
The applicants argue that the government’s definition of “income” is too broad, as it includes informal support from family or friends. They believe “income” should only encompass employment, business, or investments earnings. Additionally, they argue that the income threshold and grant amount should be adjusted to reflect inflation and rising living costs.
Issues with Verification Methods
The legal challenge also questions the reliability of the databases SASSA uses to verify income, such as those from SARS, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, and the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The applicants claim these databases are flawed and want their use declared unconstitutional. Furthermore, they argue that bank verification fails to account for fluctuations in income and are calling for its discontinuation.
Online Application Process
Unlike other social grants, the SRD grant can only be applied for online. #PayTheGrants and the IEJ argue that many potential recipients lack internet access and want the court to mandate in-person application options.
Appeal Process
The applicants are also challenging the current appeal process for declined applications, which they argue does not allow for new evidence to be presented. They are asking the court to declare this process unreasonable.
Government’s Defense
In response, Ebenezer Nkosinathi Dladla, the Department of Social Development’s chief director of legal services, defended the online application process, describing it as efficient and accessible. Dladla highlighted that up to five applicants can use one cell phone number and emphasized that the system requires no mobile data. He dismissed calls for a manual process, arguing it would slow down assistance.
SASSA
Brenton van Vrede, SASSA’s executive manager, supported the use of multiple government databases for income verification, arguing it prevents fraud and “double-dipping” by those receiving funds from other government programs. He explained that SASSA processes over 15 million monthly SRD applications, approving between 7.5 and 8.5 million beneficiaries. Van Vrede warned that introducing manual processes could result in staff strikes, further disrupting assistance.
Regarding appeals, Van Vrede stated that rejected applicants can file appeals on the Department of Social Development’s website, with a resolution time of 90 days. He defended the current system as both efficient and constitutional.
Treasury
Treasury’s then-acting director-general, Edgar Sishi, argued that the SRD regulations do not infringe on the constitutional right to social security. He explained that the rules maximize social security coverage within the government’s current financial limitations.
Sishi cautioned that any court decision overturning these regulations could have severe economic repercussions and recommended that if changes are ordered, they should be phased in to avoid budgetary strain.
Click the link to know more
