BLOEMFONTEIN, Free State — The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and the Department of Social Development are vigorously defending SRD grant accessibility before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The government is currently appealing a landmark High Court ruling which found that specific aspects of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant application system unlawfully excluded millions of eligible applicants from receiving vital financial support.
SASSA maintains that it has introduced supportive measures, including free call centres and self-help kiosks, to assist individuals who struggle with the application process. During the proceedings, the Department of Social Development and SASSA emphasized that the grant was initially established as a temporary reprieve for poor and unemployed young people during the deep lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than designed as a permanent fixture.
National Treasury also outlined its position, arguing that the state has ensured it caters to the country’s poor, but warned the court that wider access to the grant is currently unaffordable. Treasury representatives framed their stance as acting in good faith and in the best interests of the country’s fiscal constraints.
However, civil society organizations and advocacy groups strongly contest this narrative. Gilad Isaacs, executive head of the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), provided critical insights into the proceedings, noting that the judges were highly engaged and robustly questioned the senior counsel representing the Department of Social Development and SASSA.
“It is clear that these judges have read the papers and are engaging in a robust way,” Isaacs stated. He highlighted that the court appeared to recognize that certain implemented measures—such as online-only applications, restrictions on submitting new information during appeals, and biometric verification requiring applicants to own a personal smartphone—act as unfair limitations and barriers to access.
Isaacs further argued that these exclusionary mechanisms are not accidental. “Those measures have been put in place precisely as a way of limiting access in order to try and save money and stay within arbitrarily set budget caps,” he explained.
Addressing the financial arguments, the IEJ representative pointed out that the SRD grant budget has not been fully spent since its inception. The initial budget of 44 billion rand has been gradually reduced to 33 billion rand. This reduction is partly due to the stagnation of the grant’s value and the means test threshold, which fails to account for inflation and income growth, thereby automatically excluding more people over time.
“What it indicates is that these deliberately implemented exclusionary mechanisms have been working,” Isaacs noted, challenging the National Treasury’s notion of a rigidly fixed budget envelope. He emphasized that the national budgeting system allows for flexibility and reallocation. If 11 million people qualify for the grant, rather than the 8.5 million currently accounted for, the state should allocate extra funds to ensure universal access for all eligible citizens.
The human impact of these legal debates remains at the center of the case. The difference between receiving the 370 rand grant—which recently saw a commendable, though still insufficient, 20 rand increase—and being denied it dictates whether vulnerable individuals can put food on the table. The IEJ legal representative stressed that while the amount is low and does not fully meet living requirements, it remains a critical lifeline assisting a lot of people in supporting themselves.
The Supreme Court of Appeal is expected to deliberate on these competing narratives, weighing the state’s fiscal arguments against the constitutional imperative of accessible social relief for millions of South Africans.
