The Institute of Economic Justice (IEJ) and the #PayTheGrants campaign are challenging the regulations used by Sassa (South African Social Security Agency) to decide whether applicants are eligible to receive the social relief of distress (SRD) grant. After closing arguments in the two-day case, judge Leonard Twala, has reserved his judgement until the end of the year or until early next year.
The applicants in the case argued that the Sassa regulations are unconstitutional and exclusionary. “Our hope is that in the judgement, the court will make some sort of guidelines for Sassa, treasury, and the department of social development (DSD) as to how the regulations should be amended so that they conform with the constitution and do not exclude people who are in need of this grant the most based on class,” said Nkosinathi Sithole, lead attorney on the case from the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri).
Day one of the case started on the 29th of October as activists and different organisations gathered outside the Pretoria High Court to picket in solidarity. The R350 SRD grant was increased to R370 early this year. More than eight million South Africans currently get the R370. But, according to the IEJ, they are often not paid. There are another estimated eight million South Africans living below the food poverty line of R624 per month who do not receive the grant.
The state as respondents argued that there is already a plan in the works to eliminate poverty and that the SRD grant is temporary in nature and meant to be a ”stop-gap’ measure. In addition, the state doesn’t have the money to afford and sustain the grant. “The measures include improving electricity supply, logistics, sale of goods and commodities, and injecting more money into infrastructure projects,” said state advocate, Gilbert Marcus.
In an interview with Elitsha, Sithole explained Seri’s argument that the SRD grant should not be treated differently from other grants as doing so implies that each grant is funded from the same pot. He said that the state uses money from different budgets in order to fund different programmes that are constitutionally mandated.
The SRD grant is exclusionary in how applicants are only able to apply for the grant online, Seri argued, therefore requiring the use of a smart device and access to the internet. “If it is said that someone must not have over R624 in their bank account in order to be eligible for the grant, then how would that person own a smartphone?” asked Sithole. The state countered that people, particularly those in rural areas, can go and borrow smartphones from their local councillors or chiefs to assist them to apply for the grant.
Another obstacle challenged in this case is the appeal process which does not allow for new information or evidence to be submitted by applicants. “Why can’t there be a service point or an office that you can go to and explain what your situation is? Why are you just automatically kicked out and in the appeal process, you can’t explain anything new?”
Researcher from the IEJ, Siyanda Baduza said that the broad definition of income by Sassa and the DSD has led to the vast exclusion of many people who are deserving of the grant. “Receiving money from family members, child maintenance, or money held on behalf of others is considered income by Sassa. We have affidavits of people saying they were excluded on these kinds of bases and this has led to many exclusions even though these are not forms of regular financial support.”
Another challenge was the ‘unlawful’ questions in the application process for the grant that try to gauge the financial circumstances of individuals. “One such question asks people what they do in the absence of the grant; this traps beneficiaries into admitting they have means even when they don’t,” Baduza continued.
He said that they are hoping to see all of the relief measures that they asked the state for in the final judgement. “Main relief we are calling for is a structured plan from the government to deal with and plan for the SRD grant on more than just a year-on-year basis. We also want to see amendments to the current form of the regulations.”
