A legal battle over the R370-a-month Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant is set to be heard in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on 29 and 30 October. The challenge, brought by the #PayTheGrants movement and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), targets the regulations governing the SRD grant, which they argue unfairly exclude many eligible recipients.
Background
The SRD grant was introduced in May 2020 as an emergency response to the economic devastation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Initially set to run for six months, the grant has been extended several times due to the ongoing need for financial assistance among South Africa’s most vulnerable populations.
The grant amount was increased from R350 to R370 in April 2023, with eligibility limited to individuals earning up to R625 per month. Sassa, the South African Social Security Agency, monitors recipients’ bank accounts monthly to ensure compliance with income limits.
Legal Challenge
The crux of the legal challenge lies in the definition of “income” used to determine eligibility for the grant. According to #PayTheGrants and the IEJ, the government’s current definition is overly broad, encompassing not just wages, business income, or investment returns, but also financial support from family and friends. This, they argue, unfairly penalizes individuals who rely on informal support networks to survive.
The applicants are asking the court to narrow the definition of income to only include money earned from employment, business activities, or investments. Additionally, they seek an increase in the grant amount and the income threshold for eligibility, arguing that the current figures do not reflect inflation and the rising cost of living.
Verification Methods
Another significant aspect of the challenge is the method Sassa uses to verify applicants’ income. Currently, Sassa cross-references various government databases, including those of the South African Revenue Service (SARS), the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), and the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF). The applicants argue that these databases are often inaccurate and result in wrongful exclusions. They want the court to declare this verification process unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the challengers criticize Sassa’s reliance on bank verification, which does not account for fluctuations in recipients’ income. They argue that this method fails to consider the irregular financial situations many applicants face and are seeking a court ruling to prohibit it.
Accessibility Issues
The requirement that applications for the SRD grant be made online is also under scrutiny. Unlike other social grants, which allow for in-person applications, the SRD grant process is entirely digital. The IEJ and #PayTheGrants argue that this requirement excludes individuals who do not have reliable internet access or smartphones, effectively barring them from applying. They are asking the court to allow in-person applications to ensure broader accessibility.
The current appeal process is also being challenged. The applicants contend that it is irrational and unreasonable because it does not permit the introduction of new evidence. They seek a court ruling to reform the appeal process to make it more just.
Government Defense
In response to these challenges, the Department of Social Development (DSD) and Sassa have defended the existing system. Ebenezer Nkosinathi Dladla, the DSD’s chief director of legal services, emphasized that the online application process is simple and accessible, even in rural areas. He argued that moving to a manual system would be regressive and could delay the provision of much-needed assistance.
Sassa’s executive manager, Brenton van Vrede, justified the use of multiple government databases for income verification, stating that this approach prevents “double-dipping” and ensures that the grant reaches those most in need. He also defended the current appeal process, noting that it allows for a 90-day turnaround and that successful appeals result in payments.
Treasury’s Position
Treasury Director-General Edgar Sishi also weighed in, arguing that the regulations are designed to maximize social security coverage within the state’s financial constraints. He warned that any court ruling invalidating the regulations could have severe economic repercussions and urged the court to allow time for the DSD to address any issues without immediate budgetary strain.
As the High Court prepares to hear this case, the outcome could have significant implications for the future of the SRD grant and the broader social security system in South Africa.
FAQs
What is the SRD grant?
The SRD grant is a R370-a-month financial aid for low-income South Africans, introduced during Covid-19.
Who qualifies for the SRD grant?
Individuals earning up to R625 per month are eligible for the SRD grant.
Why is the SRD grant being challenged?
The challenge focuses on restrictive income definitions and the exclusionary nature of the application process.
What changes are being sought in the court case?
The challengers want a narrower income definition, higher grant amounts, and the option for in-person applications.
How does the government defend the current SRD system?
The government argues that the online process is efficient, and the use of databases ensures the grant reaches those in need.
