The Pretoria High Court delivered a significant judgment on Thursday, which could improve access to the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for a greater number of eligible individuals. The ruling addressed key concerns around the restrictive nature of the application process and the availability of funds for successful applicants.
Key Takeaways
- SRD Grant Applications No Longer Online-Only: The Pretoria High Court ruled that the online-only application process for the SRD grant was unconstitutional, requiring SASSA to provide in-person application options to ensure broader accessibility.
- SASSA Ordered to Address Payment Delays: The court declared SASSA’s failure to pay approved applicants on time as unlawful and ordered an investigation into delays, with a plan for resolution due within four months.
- Budget Cuts Limit Grant Accessibility: Despite an estimated 18.3 million eligible applicants, the government reduced the SRD grant budget, leaving only 8 million people covered, prompting accusations of using administrative hurdles to exclude beneficiaries.
About Arcadia Finance
Secure Your Loan the Easy Way with Arcadia Finance! Enjoy a seamless application with no fees and access to 19 reliable lenders. Every lender meets South Africa’s National Credit Regulator standards, ensuring safe and responsible lending tailored to you.
Court Strikes Down Online-Only Application Requirement
One of the critical aspects of the judgment involved a regulation that required all SRD grant applications to be submitted exclusively through an electronic platform. The court found this requirement to be unconstitutional as it effectively excluded individuals who lacked access to digital technology, had limited digital literacy, or experienced poor internet connectivity. To rectify this issue, the court ordered that the phrase “or at the offices of the agency” be inserted after “on the electronic platform”, ensuring that applicants have the option to submit their applications in person at South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) offices. This decision is expected to dramatically increase access for applicants in rural areas, where reliable internet access remains a major challenge. It also puts pressure on SASSA to ensure its physical offices are adequately staffed and resourced to handle the anticipated surge in in-person applications.
Now that the SRD grant application process has been simplified, ensuring that your banking details are correctly submitted is crucial. Find out how to submit banking details to SASSA to avoid delays and ensure timely grant payments directly into your account.
Restrictions on Grant Payments Declared Unconstitutional
The court also invalidated another regulation that made the disbursement of SRD grant payments contingent on the availability of funds. Previously, SASSA had the discretion to withhold payments if funds were depleted, even for applicants who had been approved. The court ruled that this approach was unconstitutional, as it violated the rights of successful applicants to receive the financial support they were entitled to.
In addition, the court determined that SASSA’s failure to process and disburse payments to approved SRD grant recipients in a timely manner was both unconstitutional and unlawful. The agency was found to be in breach of its duty by failing to ensure that applicants received their funds without unnecessary delays. Many recipients, who rely on these funds to buy essential groceries and pay for transport, have been left stranded due to the delays, often going weeks or months without receiving their promised support.
Even with an easier application process, some applicants may still face rejection. If you’ve been denied but believe you qualify, learn the steps to appeal a SASSA grant and improve your chances of getting financial relief.
SASSA Ordered to Investigate and Address Payment Delays
Acknowledging the persistent delays in grant disbursements, the court directed SASSA to conduct a thorough investigation into the causes of these delays. Furthermore, the agency was ordered to develop and implement a plan to rectify the inefficiencies in the payment process. This plan must be submitted to the court within four months of the ruling, demonstrating clear measures to prevent ongoing delays for grant recipients. This investigation is expected to shed light on the administrative inefficiencies and possible corruption within SASSA that have contributed to the delays. Public scrutiny will be high, as past attempts to streamline the process have repeatedly fallen short.
Civil Society Groups Challenge Government’s Approach to SRD Grants
The legal challenge leading to the court ruling was initiated by the Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants, who argued that the government had failed to uphold its own commitments to providing financial relief to working-age adults in need. The organisations contended that certain aspects of the SRD grant regulations and the application process unfairly prevented legally eligible individuals from accessing social assistance.
They pointed out that while the SRD grant, like other social grants, is means-tested, its recipients faced additional barriers compared to other grant applicants. The online-only application system created unnecessary difficulties for those without access to digital platforms, making it harder for eligible individuals to secure financial support. Critics have slammed the government’s handling of the process as “deliberately exclusionary” and accused officials of using technical loopholes to reduce the number of approved beneficiaries.
Concerns Over Budget Cuts and Eligibility Exclusions
Despite acknowledging that up to 18.3 million people could qualify for the SRD grant, the National Treasury reduced the budget allocated to the programme. For the 2024/25 financial year, funding for the grant was cut from R36 billion to R33.6 billion, effectively limiting the number of beneficiaries to 8 million. The applicants argued that the government used administrative and procedural hurdles to exclude a significant portion of those who would otherwise be eligible, thereby reducing overall spending on social assistance. This budget cut has sparked outrage among advocacy groups, who argue that the government is prioritising fiscal constraints over the well-being of the country’s most vulnerable citizens.
Government Defends Digital Application Process
The Minister of Social Development, SASSA, and the National Treasury maintained that the SRD grant was designed as a temporary measure to assist those who could not support themselves and their dependents. They defended the online-only application system, arguing that it was efficient, easy to use, and accessible from any smartphone, including those borrowed from friends, relatives, or community leaders in rural areas.
In response to concerns over payment delays, government representatives acknowledged that there had been technical difficulties when the system was first implemented. However, they insisted that these issues had been resolved and that the system was now functioning as intended. Many applicants, however, dispute this claim, with reports of delays and application rejections still surfacing regularly on social media and in the press.
Judge Highlights Need for Fair and Reasonable Procedural Safeguards
In delivering the judgment, Judge Mpostoli Twala agreed that public funds must be distributed with procedural safeguards to ensure that only eligible individuals receive grants. However, he emphasised that such safeguards must be reasonable and fair.
Twala criticised the use of procedural barriers as a means to limit the number of beneficiaries or to reduce government spending. He ruled that it was unjustifiable to subject SRD grant applicants—who are among the most vulnerable members of society—to an online-only application system when alternative methods were available for other types of social grants. This ruling underscores a growing frustration with policies that appear to deliberately sideline the most economically marginalised South Africans.
Push for Increase in SRD Grant Value Rejected by Court
As part of the court case, the applicants sought an order requiring the government to develop and implement a plan to increase the value of the SRD grant and adjust the income threshold in response to economic conditions. They argued that the grant’s value had eroded over time due to inflation, making it increasingly inadequate.
Judge Twala acknowledged that the value of the SRD grant had declined in real terms since its introduction in May 2020, with an increase from R350 to R370 failing to keep pace with rising costs. He noted that the current grant amount remained well below the national food poverty line. However, he ruled that decisions regarding increases in grant values fell within the authority of the executive branch, and that the court could not compel the government to adjust the grant amount. This ruling, while expected, leaves millions of struggling South Africans without a clear path to improved financial relief.
Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling is a significant step towards improving access to the SRD grant, particularly for vulnerable South Africans who previously struggled with the restrictive application process and delayed payments. While the decision forces SASSA to expand accessibility and address inefficiencies, the broader issue of underfunding remains unresolved. With budget cuts limiting the number of beneficiaries, concerns persist that many eligible individuals will still be left without essential financial support. The government now faces mounting pressure to ensure that social relief measures are both fair and adequately resourced.
Fast, uncomplicated, and trustworthy loan comparisons
At Arcadia Finance, you can compare loan offers from multiple lenders with no obligation and free of charge. Get a clear overview of your options and choose the best deal for you.
Fill out our form today to easily compare interest rates from 16 banks and find the right loan for you.
