On 26 March this year, the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) filed our replying affidavit in the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant court case. The replying affidavit responds to arguments put forward by the state parties in opposition to our case.
We initially launched the case in the High Court in July 2023. The respondents originally cited were the Department of Social Development (DSD) and the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA). Subsequently, National Treasury, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, applied to intervene in the case, to oppose aspects of the relief sought. Thus, our replying affidavit responds to arguments put forward by these three parties.
The legal action is an attempt to rectify the unfair and irrational systems of administration for the SRD grant, which have served to exclude up to 50% of the people (around 8 million) who are living in food poverty with no other access to social assistance, and who should qualify for the SRD. Despite many attempts to engage constructively with government on this issue over a long period, we ultimately had no choice but to turn to the courts when exclusionary approaches were deliberately retained in successive versions of the relevant regulations.
In opposing our case, government has chosen to varyingly deny that the issues exist in the first place; misrepresent the issues and the relief we seek; acknowledge that there are problems that undermine peoples’ rights but claim that it is not within government’s power to fix these (either because it is impractical, or unaffordable); or acknowledge that there are problems that undermine peoples’ rights but claim that fixing them is not a priority.
The result is a confusing and contradictory defence which fails to appreciate the gravity of the issues at stake and the government’s responsibility to those who are suffering dire hunger and economic exclusion.
At the heart of our application is the right to social assistance for all those unable to support themselves, enshrined in Section 27 of the Constitution. The government is obligated to progressively realise this right.
According to IEJ Executive Director Dr Gilad Isaacs, “In the face of government inaction, the plight of grant applicants and beneficiaries remains dire, with hunger and economic exclusion persisting. Our court action seeks to remedy unlawful and unfair procedures and regulations in the SRD grant, underpinned by the Constitutional right to social assistance, and the government’s obligation to progressively realise that right. Our replying affidavit lays bare the flaws in the contradictory policy choices and exclusionary administration of the SRD grant, and challenges government’s inadequate response. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about real people struggling to put food on the table.”
Our founding affidavit detailed, with extensive supporting evidence, the complex barriers which have served to exclude people in need from accessing the grant. These include the fact that the grant can only be applied for online, alongside the inaccurate systems of verification of eligibility employed by SASSA—namely checks on people’s bank accounts, and checks on government databases. In addition, the appeals process for the grant is woefully unfit for purpose, as it simply entails repeating the flawed verification process which is the reason for the vast majority of appeals in the first place. Supporting affidavits from #PTG members who have been negatively impacted by these barriers, filed alongside the founding affidavit, bolster the claims made.
The replying affidavit responds to the government’s arguments about why the administration of the SRD grant does not need to, or cannot be improved. Interested parties are encouraged to read the full replying affidavit on IEJ’s website for a complete overview of the issues canvassed. For convenience, a summary of selected thematic points is provided at the end of this statement.
Shortly after the signing of our replying affidavit, government adopted amendments to the regulations governing the SRD grant. Far from addressing the issues raised in our case, these amendments, in many ways, double down on the strategy of exclusion and retrogression by introducing new punitive measures, that, in the context of an already exclusionary system, are likely to lead to more exclusion and hardship, including giving the government the ability to recover monies already paid to beneficiaries if they are later deemed ineligible. This is concerning since systems of verification of eligibility are known to be flawed, and recovering monies could cause significant hardship to beneficiaries. The regulations further provide for the cancellation of pending payments if beneficiaries are not traceable. However, many SRD grant beneficiaries are ‘untraceable’ not as a result of their own neglect, but because of the systems of administration of the SRD grant which limit people’s ability to provide and maintain personal contact details, particularly in cases where they use somebody else’s device to apply.
At the last minute before our filing, the government announced that the grant value would be increased from R350 to R370 per month and was included in the final amended Regulations. This had not been proposed in the Budget Speech or the initial draft amendments to the regulations. Unfortunately, over the time the SRD grant has been in place the food poverty line has increased from R585 to R760 due largely to high food inflation. The meagre R20 increase does not, therefore, reverse the retrogression that the grant has been subject to. The SRD grant still has much less purchasing power in 2024 than it did in 2020, and is much less able to protect beneficiaries against hunger. If the SRD grant had merely kept pace with inflation it would have reached approximately R440 in April 2024.
These issues will be argued before the Court, and we now await a hearing date and eagerly anticipate the resolution of these matters in the interests of the most vulnerable in our society who continue to suffer the retrogression of their right to sufficient food and water, and to social assistance.
[ENDS]
Below are the affidavits filed to date:
- IEJ and #PTG’s founding affidavit
- DSD’s answering affidavit
- SASSA’s supporting affidavit
- Minister of Finance’s answering affidavit
- IEJ and #PTG’s replying affidavit
For media inquiries, please contact:
- Dalli Weyers | IEJ Advocacy and Communications Manager | dalli.weyers@iej.org.za | 082 460 2093