Cape Town - 120402 - There was chaos at the Athlone Civic Centre as pensioners tried to get their grant. There were reports of overcrowding, insufficient staff & broken machines. The Cape Argus Team was denied entry to the centre by Fidelity security guards. Pictured is a SASSA debit card. Reporter: Daneel Knoetze Picture: David Ritchie
The regulations of the Social Relief of Distress grants - introduced by the government during the Covid-19 pandemic at R350 (now R370) a month for those with no income - are being challenged in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.
The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants, who are represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute, are challenging various procedural barriers that have been put in place which prevent eligible persons in desperate need from accessing the grant.
In addition, they challenge the fact that the grant has been rolled back, both in terms of purchasing power and in terms of the number of people eligible, since it was introduced. It was argued that this contradicts the government's constitutional obligation to progressively advance the right to social assistance within the limits of available resources.
The applicants said they are dismayed by the government’s dismissive attitude towards the rights and needs of impoverished communities, their unwillingness to engage constructively, and their denial of basic realities.
According to them, the government is out of touch with the realities and experiences of the grant applicants and beneficiaries which constitute millions of South Africans.
The government has determined that only people who have less than R624 flowing into their bank account in a month (from any source, for any purpose) can receive the R370 grant. According to Statistics South Africa, a person needs R796 per month this year just to afford enough food. Anyone with income less than this objectively cannot afford housing, internet access, electricity, data, transport, and clothing, the applicants said.
“They most certainly are not living in a ‘comfortable home’ and by the government’s own criteria, they cannot afford the costs associated with applying for the grant, and thus face insurmountable barriers to access it,” the applicant argued.
They said the government time and again said that the grant will not be removed, and will form the foundation for a more expansive system of basic income. “Yet, government continues to allege in their response to our case that the grant is ‘temporary’, and can be withdrawn at any time.”
While the government claims that the grant remains a response to Covid-19 circumstances (particularly unemployment caused by the pandemic) and that those circumstances are abating, the applicants said this is not true.
“Unemployment was at crisis levels before the pandemic and remains at crisis levels today. About 42.6% of working-age adults are unemployed. The vast majority of these have been unemployed for a year or more.”
The applicants maintained that claims that the grant is temporary because it is designed to respond to circumstances which are temporary or changing, cannot be taken seriously. “Even if unemployment was at 4.2% rather than 42% – the unemployed would still have a right to assistance from the state.”
The applicants said that in any event, the grant is intended to address poverty and hunger experienced by anyone of working age, regardless of their employment status, including for instance unpaid caregivers.
According to the applicants, procedural barriers to access to the grant is resulting in excluding up to 50% of eligible beneficiaries.
“Grant beneficiaries and the South African public deserve much better from their elected officials and public servants,” the court was told.
About 79 people provided supporting affidavits when this case was launched, detailing how they have been affected personally by the injustices in the administration of the grant—for many it has meant going hungry. The applicants accused the government of simply ignoring the plight of these people.
They, however, made it clear that they are not asking the court to pronounce on how much the grant should be. “We are not asking the state to implement our preferred policies. We are simply asking for the government to implement its own policy, in line with constitutional prescripts, rather than undermining it.”
The applicants said they want the court to direct the government to develop a reasonable plan that provides for the grant on more than an annual basis, taking into account relevant cost of living factors and other real-world evidence of need. They also want orders remedying the “unlawful” aspects of the grant administration.
“These are the bare minimum steps the government can take towards fulfilling its responsibilities to the millions of adults in South Africa who face daily poverty and hunger, are shut out of the labour market through no fault of their own, and will continue to be for at least the medium-term,” the applicants said.
In opposing the application, the national treasury said that South Africa has various government programmes to address poverty and that we spend more on social assistance than any developing country in the world.
WhatsApp your views on this story at 071 485 7995.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za