Judgment on SRD grant means more will benefit, organisations say

The judgment which declared some regulations governing the social relief of distress (SRD) grant invalid affirms that up to 18.3-million people are eligible to receive this grant.

This is the reaction by the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and #PaytheGrant, which launched an application before the Pretoria high court to challenge some of the regulations, which they believed excluded eligible applicants from accessing the grant.

The court on Thursday declared some of these regulations invalid, including one that limited applications for the grant to be only made online.

IEJ executive director Gilad Isaacs said the last available month of information showed the SRD grant was paid to 7.5-million people.

“The judgment paves the way for people accessing the grant now to continue to access it and makes it possible for another 11-million people to have access to this lifeline. It does this by ensuring that barriers put in the way of grant access are removed,” Isaacs said.

He said the judgment also ordered the government to remedy systemic problems of nonpayment and late payment of approved beneficiaries.

“In addition, all current and future beneficiaries will benefit from a ruling that requires the government to urgently, in the next four months, put in place a plan to progressively improve the value of the grant, and to address the retrogression in its value, using official poverty lines as a reference to ensure the grant better covered the cost of living.”

Given that the vast majority of those eligible for the SRD grant have dependents, the judgment materially affected more than half the South African population. 

The judgment also issued a sharp rebuke to the National Treasury, which has overreached into social development policy and imposed unlawful and unconstitutional requirements on SRD grant applicants in an attempt to curtail public expenditure, Isaacs said.

One of the notable findings by the court was that the SRD grant was not temporary.

“The state grounded their case in the argument that the SRD grant was only a temporary measure and therefore could be handled differently to other social grants, and extended, rolled back or terminated at the whim of ministers.”

Isaacs said the court also held that procedural “safeguards”, while legitimate in principle, cannot be designed with the ulterior motive of limiting the number of people who access the grant.

“The judge held that application and verification processes imposed by the government — including automated checks on bank accounts and inaccurate government databases, like UIF and NSFAS, were not reasonable measures to safeguard the grant from abuse, but were designed to limit uptake of the grant by eligible people and were therefore unlawful.”

Isaacs said the court also held that only allowing applications via an online portal, and not at Sassa offices, was irrational and illegal.

“We argued that the exclusively online application process excluded the poorest applications, given that about 22% of the population does not have any internet access according to the General Household Survey.”

According to the judgment, the government had designed the regulations with unlawful intent, he said.

“The judge repeatedly notes that the restrictive regulations are not aimed simply to prevent abuse and streamline applications but are designed to exclude those the grant is supposed to serve.”

Isaacs said the organisations were appealing to the government not to contest the judgment.

“The judgment paves the way to give effect to the government’s own policies, as articulated by the president, of ensuring a social assistance floor for all, improving and expanding the SRD grant, and transitioning to a system of basic income support.”

Elizabeth Raiters, deputy chairperson of #PaytheGrant, said since the SRD was introduced, it had been a struggle for beneficiaries to access the then R350 grant due to regulations that made it difficult for deserving beneficiaries.

She said even though the grant had now increased to R370, beneficiaries did not receive the full amount because of bank charges.

“I just hope Sassa implements the judgment and does not take it to appeal,” Raiters said.

The department of social development noted the judgment, saying it was still studying it and would respond in due course.

TimesLIVE