BLOEMFONTEIN, Free State — The SRD grant accessibility appeal has taken center stage at the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and the Department of Social Development are vigorously defending their application processes. The government is challenging a previous High Court ruling that declared certain elements of the Social Relief of Distress system unlawful for excluding millions of eligible citizens from receiving vital financial support.
During the extensive hearings, SASSA argued that it has implemented support structures, such as self-help kiosks and toll-free call centres, to aid applicants facing difficulties with the system. The Department of Social Development emphasized that the SRD grant was originally conceived as a temporary lifeline for unemployed and impoverished individuals—particularly the youth—during the strict COVID-19 lockdowns, rather than a permanent social safety net.
National Treasury also presented its stance, maintaining that the state continues to cater to the country’s poor. However, Treasury representatives cautioned the court that expanding access further is currently unaffordable, framing their fiscal constraints as a good-faith effort to protect the nation’s economic interests.
Despite the state’s defense, civil society organizations argue that these interventions are vastly insufficient. Throughout the proceedings, the bench demonstrated deep engagement with the case files, posing rigorous questions to the senior counsel representing the government. The judiciary appeared highly skeptical of several digital and administrative hurdles. Specifically, the court probed the fairness of requiring an online-only application process, prohibiting the submission of new information during appeals, and mandating biometric verification that necessitates the applicant owning a personal smartphone. The judges signaled that these requirements could be viewed as unjustified barriers to entry.
While the court seemed willing to accept National Treasury’s affordability concerns at face value, the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) pushed back strongly against the narrative of rigid fiscal limitations. Gilad Isaacs, the executive head of the IEJ, noted that the exclusionary mechanisms were not accidental oversights but deliberate strategies to restrict access and keep spending within arbitrary budget caps.
Isaacs provided detailed financial context, revealing that the SRD budget has consistently underspent since the program’s inception. Initially allocated at 44 billion rand, the budget was systematically reduced to 33 billion rand. He explained that this reduction was driven by the stagnation of both the grant’s monetary value and the means test threshold. As inflation rises and incomes grow, fewer individuals fall below the stagnant threshold, automatically disqualifying them.
“What it indicates is that these deliberately implemented exclusionary mechanisms have been working,” Isaacs observed.
Challenging the Treasury’s view of a fixed financial “envelope,” the IEJ argued that national budgets inherently possess flexibility. The system allows for continuous reallocation, accommodating both underspends and overspends. Isaacs stressed that if eligibility data shows 11 million people qualify for the grant—rather than the 8.5 million currently projected—the state has a responsibility to allocate the necessary extra funds to ensure universal access for all eligible citizens.
At the heart of the legal battle is the stark reality faced by millions of vulnerable South Africans. The IEJ’s legal representatives underscored the profound impact of the 370 rand monthly payout. While acknowledging that the amount remains insufficient to meet basic living costs, they noted that even a recent 20 rand increase is a commendable step. Ultimately, the difference between receiving or being denied this grant dictates whether a struggling individual can successfully put food on the table.
