BLOEMFONTEIN, Free State — The Supreme Court of Appeal is set to hear the state’s highly anticipated R370 SRD grant appeal, a landmark case that could redefine the future of South Africa’s Social Relief of Distress program. At the center of the legal battle is the government’s effort to overturn a High Court ruling that found key aspects of the grant’s administration unconstitutional and exclusionary. Siyanda Baduza, Basic Income Junior Researcher at the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), emphasizes that the current framework deliberately marginalizes vulnerable citizens through flawed policy design.
The IEJ, which served as the first applicant in the original High Court case in Pretoria, argues that the state’s approach to the grant has created insurmountable barriers for those who need it most. Civil society groups estimate that the online-only application system alone excludes approximately 14% of eligible beneficiaries who lack regular internet access or smartphones.
Three Pillars of Unconstitutional Administration
According to Baduza, the IEJ’s case against the state’s administration of the grant rests on three main pillars:
- Deliberate Exclusions: The system employs an overly broad definition of income and relies on inaccurate databases for means testing. These flawed mechanisms cannot reliably determine a person’s employment status at a specific time, effectively functioning as a tool to artificially reduce the number of grant recipients due to budget and time pressures.
- Inadequate Grant Value and Eligibility Thresholds: The grant value has remained largely stagnant, seeing only a R20 increase since its inception in 2020, leaving it at R370. Baduza notes that this amount falls far below objective definitions of basic need and the food poverty line. Furthermore, the income threshold used to determine eligibility is excessively low and has not been adjusted to reflect current economic realities.
- Systematic Non-Payment: Even when applicants navigate the exclusionary mechanisms and are officially approved by the system, they frequently do not receive their funds. Baduza highlighted that close to one or two million approved beneficiaries fail to receive their grant payouts every month.
The “Temporary” Grant Debate and Fraud Concerns
During the legal proceedings, government appellants, including the Department of Social Development and SASSA, have argued that the High Court erred by characterizing the SRD grant as a permanent fixture. The state contends that treating it as a permanent grant alters the original legislative intent of the Social Assistance Act, which envisioned it as a temporary measure introduced during the height of the COVID-19 lockdown. The government maintains that strict administrative mechanisms are necessary to ensure only those with truly insufficient means qualify, citing the need to curb fraud.
Baduza firmly rejects this justification. Pointing out that the grant has now been extended over a seven-year period, with provisions continuing into 2027, she argued that the temporary or permanent nature of the grant does not legally justify arbitrary or unfair treatment of applicants.
Furthermore, Baduza emphasized that fair administrative mechanisms—such as allowing in-person appeals and enabling applicants to contextualize their financial situations—are already successfully implemented in other permanent social grants. There is no logical reason to withhold these fair practices from SRD applicants.
Addressing the government’s concerns over fraud, Baduza presented a critical statistic: since 2014, over 80% of reported fraud cases within the social assistance system have involved government officials and contractors, not beneficiaries.
“There really isn’t any basis or evidence to make the case that you need to intensify [barriers] purely to curb fraud,” Baduza stated, reinforcing the IEJ’s position that the current administrative hurdles are not about protecting the system, but about deliberately limiting access to essential financial support.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s hearing on the R370 SRD grant appeal is expected to draw significant attention from civil society organizations, legal experts, and millions of South Africans who rely on the grant for basic survival.