<\/p>\n
The government has warned that expanding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, as ordered by the high court, could cost the state up to R139 billion a year.<\/p>\n
On Tuesday, the Department of Social Development (DSD), the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) and National Treasury defended the grant\u2019s regulations before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).<\/p>\n
The appeal was against a January 2025 Gauteng High Court judgment by Judge Leonard Twala, which found several regulations governing the R370-a-month grant unconstitutional and invalid.<\/p>\n
Read:<\/p>\n
Explosive court ruling on SRD grant
\nFuture of SRD grant uncertain \u2013 National Treasury
\nActivists accuse state of blocking access to Sassa grants<\/p>\n
The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and #PayTheGrants had challenged the regulations, arguing they excluded millions of potentially eligible people.<\/p>\n
Twala ruled in their favour. He found there was no reasonable justification for requiring vulnerable people to apply only online, and ordered the government to allow in-person applications.<\/p>\n
He also ordered government to progressively increase the grant and raise the income threshold in line with the cost of living, and ruled that once-off payments and gifts should not be counted as income.<\/p>\n
The SRD grant was introduced in 2020 as a temporary measure during the Covid-19 pandemic and has since been extended annually.<\/p>\n
The SCA heard on Tuesday that the grant is paid to about 8.5 million people who meet the eligibility requirements, including an income threshold of R624 a month. Sassa conducts monthly checks of applicants\u2019 bank accounts to determine whether they remain eligible.<\/p>\n
Treasury cannot afford to do more<\/p>\n
Advocate Gilbert Marcus, representing National Treasury, told the SCA that the case involved a fundamental disagreement over how socio-economic rights \u201cshould be realised\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the one hand, there is the laudable desire, shared by Treasury, to widen the net of social assistance as much as possible,\u201d Marcus said.<\/p>\n
But Treasury could not afford to do more, given competing demands on government and the country\u2019s weak fiscal position, he said.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Read:<\/p>\n
Minister promises shorter Sassa queues and R1.5bn in savings
\nSassa suspends 70 000 grant payments in crackdown<\/p>\n
He argued that the high court had failed to properly assess Treasury\u2019s evidence about those constraints. In directing the government how to spend its money, the high court had not sufficiently considered the separation of powers, Marcus argued.<\/p>\n
\u201cGovernment can only spend money it extracts through taxation. Borrowing money is nothing more than deferred taxation,\u201d Marcus said.<\/p>\n
He said further spending on the SRD would necessarily come at the expense of other government priorities.<\/p>\n
Treasury\u2019s longer-term strategy is to promote economic growth and job creation while providing social assistance as a safety net, Marcus said.<\/p>\n
He said the relief sought by the IEJ could cost between R93 billion to R139 billion, depending on the extent to which the grant value and income threshold were increased.<\/p>\n
Unfair means tests<\/p>\n
Marcus defended the use of bank and database checks to determine whether applicants had \u201cinsufficient means\u201d and to prevent fraud and wasteful expenditure.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is not in dispute that in any reasonable system where public money is used to provide benefits to the population, procedural safeguards are adopted to ensure that only those to whom a particular benefit is due may receive it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He acknowledged that no system is perfect, especially one dealing with millions of applications, but said, \u201csome compromises have to be made\u201d.<\/p>\n
The judges repeatedly questioned whether those compromises unfairly affected vulnerable applicants.<\/p>\n
On the online-only system, Judge Pieter Meyer referred to people \u201cwithout the means to even buy a cellphone\u201d and those unable to use electronic platforms, asking why they could not instead be assisted at Sassa offices.<\/p>\n
Judge Wendy Hughes questioned what had changed since the Covid-19 lockdown, when online applications were introduced, and asked whether government had done enough to accommodate people without access to the system.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Marcus said government had introduced self-help kiosks at Sassa offices, email assistance and community outreach programmes. Call centres were also available to assist.<\/p>\n
Advocate Herman van Eeden, for the DSD and Sassa, said the system remained online because it was the only practical way of processing applications on the scale required.<\/p>\n
He said there were about 15 million people on the SRD grant system (not all of whom are considered eligible for the grant), and replacing the automated process with one requiring human intervention would lead to \u201cadministrative paralysis\u201d.<\/p>\n
Van Eeden also defended the monthly bank and database checks, saying the SRD was temporary relief awarded on a month-to-month basis and therefore required a \u201cspeedy verification process\u201d.<\/p>\n
He acknowledged that applicants could be wrongly excluded when databases contained outdated information, but said applicants could appeal and have their information corrected.<\/p>\n
Increasing the SRD grant<\/p>\n
For the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri), representing the IEJ and #PayTheGrants, Advocate Jason Brickhill argued that the government\u2019s case was not supported by the evidence it presented before the high court.<\/p>\n
He referred to DSD proposals from 2023, showing that the department had considered increasing the grant to between R430 and R663 and raising the income threshold to R663, R945 or R1 417. Treasury had modelled the costs of these options.<\/p>\n
Read:
Sassa to bring in biometrics for all grant applications from September [2025]
MPs not impressed with new Sassa verification process<\/p>\n
Brickhill argued that Treasury had placed the maximum possible costs of expanding the grant before the SCA, without putting those figures into the broader context of the social assistance budget.<\/p>\n
He said the R20-a-month grant increase in 2024 would have cost about R2 billion for 8.5 million beneficiaries, less than 1% of the roughly R250 billion social assistance budget at the time.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe central part of this case is that grant beneficiaries seek incremental increases of that sort of proportion closer to inflation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Read: Biometric crackdown on grants to save R3bn as fraud cases axed<\/p>\n
Brickhill also rejected the suggestion that allowing in-person applications would require Sassa to abandon its online system.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese orders only apply to new applicants,\u201d he said. Existing beneficiaries would continue receiving the grant unless they became ineligible.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe order gives an additional option for that minority of people who can\u2019t apply online to do so in person.\u201d<\/p>\n
Brickhill said Sassa\u2019s interpretation of income effectively treated any money held by an applicant as income or financial support, regardless of where it came from or why it was in the person\u2019s account.<\/p>\n
Brickhill also challenged the government\u2019s affordability argument. \u201cBudget and affordability can never justify arbitrary exclusions,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He argued that, if government wanted to control beneficiary numbers because of budget constraints, it should do so transparently.<\/p>\n
This could be done by changing the eligibility criteria, rather than by creating barriers that prevent people from applying or relying on database systems that exclude people.<\/p>\n
The SCA reserved judgment.<\/p>\n
\u00a9 2026 GroundUp. This article was first published here.<\/p>\n
#National #Treasury #grilled #judges #SRD #grant<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government has warned that expanding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, as ordered…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[11757,20220,7946,1786,20221,4192],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14620"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}