Minister of Social Development Sisisi Tolashe has defended the measures taken by her department regarding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, emphasizing that they were designed to simplify access for those in desperate need.
Her statement comes as the Department of Social Development and the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) appeal a ruling by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which declared the 2023 regulations governing the distribution of the SRD grant unconstitutional and invalid.
Government Challenges High Court Ruling
The court’s decision has sparked concern within the department, as it directly affects how SASSA administers the grant and assesses applicants.
In legal papers submitted for the appeal, Minister Tolashe argued that the court’s ruling places an additional burden on her department and SASSA, requiring them to conduct more complex financial assessments despite having limited resources.
Sisisi Tolashe
“The consequence of the court’s judgment will place a burden on the department and SASSA to provide for more complex assessments with limited resources,” Tolashe stated.
The ruling also specifically redefined the term “income”, stating that it only refers to money received on a regular basis from formal or informal employment, business activities, or investments.
Dispute Over the Definition of “Income”
Tolashe disagrees with this interpretation, arguing that the definition of income should align with the SRD grant’s purpose—which is to evaluate an applicant’s financial situation on a monthly basis to determine whether they qualify for assistance.
She believes that income assessments should take into account all financial means available to the applicant, not just regular earnings.
“The court ought to have found that the interpretation of the word ‘income’ is aligned with the purpose of the SRD grant,” she argued.
The Nature of the SRD Grant
The SRD grant, introduced as a temporary relief measure, is different from other forms of social assistance. It was implemented to help those facing extreme financial distress, particularly unemployed individuals who have no stable source of income.
Tolashe emphasized that because the grant is time-bound and serves a specific purpose, there is a need for monthly assessments to ensure that only those who truly qualify receive it.
“The grant is a different form of social assistance with requirements and time-bound measures. This, therefore, creates a need to assess the applicant’s financial means on a monthly basis,” she explained.
SASSA’s Role in Financial Verification
The minister’s argument concluded with a strong emphasis on SASSA’s responsibility to conduct thorough financial assessments of applicants.
She asserted that SASSA must evaluate whether individuals have any form of income or access to alternative financial means before granting them assistance.
This, she believes, is necessary to ensure fairness and prevent potential misuse of the funds.
What Happens Next?
As the appeal process unfolds, the outcome will have significant implications for how the SRD grant is administered in the future.
If the Gauteng High Court’s ruling is upheld, SASSA may have to revise its assessment criteria—which could make it easier for some applicants to qualify for the grant.
However, if the government’s appeal is successful, the existing system of monthly financial evaluations will remain in place, ensuring that only those in immediate financial need receive assistance.
The case has also sparked debate among social justice advocates, with some arguing that the current assessment process is too restrictive and excludes many struggling South Africans. Others support stricter regulations, citing the need to prevent fraud and ensure the grant reaches the most vulnerable citizens.
As the court battle continues, millions of South Africans dependent on the SRD grant await clarity on how future applications will be assessed.