State is blocking access to SASSA grants, argue activists

Government’s online-only application process, bank verification checks and the broad definition of “income” wrongly exclude poor applicants from the Social Relief of Distress grant, argue the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and the #PayTheGrants campaign.

• The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants say the government is deliberately using administrative barriers to keep SRD grant spending low.
• They are responding to government’s appeal against a high court ruling that found key SRD regulations unconstitutional.
• The groups argue that the online-only application process, bank verification checks and broad definition of “income” wrongly exclude poor applicants, including those receiving once-off or emergency financial help.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and the #PayTheGrants campaign have accused the National Treasury and the Department of Social Development of deliberately excluding millions of people eligible for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant.

The groups were responding to the government’s appeal application, with the Supreme Court of Appeal, against a high court ruling that found several SRD grant regulations unlawful. The groups argue that restrictive regulations and administrative barriers violate constitutional rights and undermine the grant’s purpose of addressing hunger and income poverty.

In their court papers, the groups argue that the government made the SRD grant “inaccessible to millions of people who need it, refused it to eligible beneficiaries based on inaccurate information, reduced its value and the means threshold for eligibility, and persistently failed to pay hundreds of thousands of approved beneficiaries”.

In January last year, the high court in Pretoria ruled that several SRD regulations unlawfully limited access to the grant, including the online-only application system, the R624 monthly income threshold and the grant’s value.

The SRD grant was introduced in 2020 as a temporary emergency measure in response to the covid pandemic and has since been extended annually, with the current extension running until 31 March 2027. Its value was increased from R350 to R370 in April 2024. To qualify, applicants must earn less than R625 a month, with SASSA conducting monthly bank checks. This process has often excluded people receiving occasional financial help from friends or relatives.

Millions excluded

As of June 2022, there were 13.4-million working-age people with no income and 18.3-million working-age people with incomes below the food poverty line, according to the department. For many people within these groups, the SRD grant has “substantially reduced poverty and hunger” and had positive economic effects, they argue.

With the introduction of new criteria, the grant “provides less assistance than it did when it was introduced” and is received by significantly fewer people now than at its height in March 2022. This, the groups argue, was deliberate.

“Treasury persistently allocates funding that is sufficient to fund payment to fewer than half of the 18.3-million people who the Department of Social Development has estimated would qualify for it.”

Also at issue is the online-only application system. The groups argue it is irrational and unconstitutional, saying it was adopted to “serve the improper purpose of reducing uptake”.

In its papers, the department pointed out that complaints by applicants posted on platforms like X (Twitter) shows there is no barrier to online access.

The groups countered this by saying while some applicants had access to social media, a significant number of applicants do not have internet access. They say the system also poses “an insurmountable hurdle” for people without digital literacy or those with disabilities.

Income and affordability disputed

The groups argue that treating any money entering an applicant’s bank account as income unjustly excluded many people. “It is also perverse to classify as ‘income’ or ‘financial support’ payments made to the recipient precisely because they cannot support themselves,” they said.

The groups also criticised the bank verification processes, saying the government’s “unchallenged evidence” shows they wrongly exclude eligible applicants by misclassifying funds and relying on a single month’s snapshot, “which cannot be taken as an indication of regular income and financial support”.

The groups rejected Treasury’s claim that the grant is unaffordable. “Government cannot deprive some qualifying applicants of the grant because it has chosen not to allocate sufficient budget to fund its own regulations.”

They are asking the court to dismiss the appeal with costs. A date for the court case is yet to be determined.

© 2026 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.