State appeals finding that R370 SRD grant is a permanent facility

The social relief of distress (SRD) grant was created as a temporary measure, and a high court finding that it is a permanent facility encroaches on the executive’s powers, the state argues in appeal papers filed at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The social development minister and the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa), represented by Adv Thembi Ntoane, are appealing against the entire judgement of the Pretoria high court, which found that the grant is a permanent feature promulgated under the Social Assistance Act.

The state lost the case in the high court in the litigation initiated by the advocacy organisation Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and #PayTheGrants campaign.

The government introduced the SRD grant during Covid-19 to provide relief to people who lost employment during the pandemic and retained it in May 2020 as social assistance for working-age adults with little to no income.

The high court found that despite the government’s concession that the number of people eligible to receive the R370 grant may be as high as 18.3-million, the Treasury only provided a budget for 10.5-million people.

It said the state had used administrative and procedural obstacles which excluded vulnerable people in need of social assistance, who would ordinarily be eligible, from receiving the grant. It declared several grant regulations unconstitutional, and found them to be bottlenecks for eligible people to access the grant. This includes the regulation that restricts applications to be made online only.

The court order required the government to devise and implement a plan to progressively increase the value of the SRD grant and declared unconstitutional the income threshold for people eligible for the grant of R624 per person per month, which is below the poverty line.

In the court papers, Ntoane argues that the court’s finding that SRD is of equal status to the other social grants provided for in the Social Assistance Act “resulted in the erroneous declarations that the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress Regulations, April 22 2022 (Covid-19 SRD Regulations 4), are unconstitutional and invalid”.

“It is submitted that in upholding the finding of the court a quo that the Covid-19 SRD is permanent would have the effect of completely changing Parliament’s purpose for the Covid-19 SRD and turning it to a permanent income grant for the unemployed,” she says.

“In addition, this finding would have the effect of encroaching into the space of the executive.”

Ntoane argues the high court erred in finding people eligible for the SRD grant who live in rural areas have no access to smartphones and that the department’s decision to only allow online applications excluded them.

“The court ...