IEJ and #PTG file response to government’s defence in the SRD grant court case

The IEJ and #PTG have filed a replying affidavit in a High Court case against the South African government, arguing that the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant is administered through 'unfair and irrational systems' that exclude up to 8 million people living in food poverty. The applicants challenge the government's defense—which cites fiscal constraints and the temporary nature of the grant—by arguing that National Treasury is overstepping its mandate and that the state is prioritizing the prevention of 'inclusion errors' over the rights of eligible beneficiaries. The document further notes that recent regulatory amendments and a small increase in grant value (from R350 to R370) fail to address the retrogression of the grant's purchasing power against high food inflation.

• The SRD grant administration is characterized by exclusionary systems that may prevent up to 50% of eligible people—approximately 8 million individuals living in food poverty—from accessing assistance.
• Specific barriers to accessing the grant include the requirement for online-only applications and flawed verification systems that check bank accounts and government databases, as well as an appeals process that merely repeats these flawed checks.
• The government is accused of prioritizing the prevention of 'inclusion errors' (giving grants to ineligible people) over 'exclusion errors' (denying grants to eligible people), despite the Department of Social Development admitting that exclusion errors are far more numerous.
• The IEJ argues that National Treasury has exceeded its constitutional mandate by dictating social development policy and the grant's value, effectively usurping the powers of other departments and Parliament.
• The applicants contest the government's claim of fiscal unaffordability, asserting that budget constraints are policy choices rather than immutable facts and that Treasury has failed to mobilize available resources for constitutional rights.
• Recent regulatory amendments are viewed as punitive and regressive, introducing the ability for the government to recover funds from beneficiaries later deemed ineligible and cancelling payments for 'untraceable' beneficiaries.
• A recent increase in the grant value from R350 to R370 per month is insufficient to counter inflation; the food poverty line rose from R585 to R760, and the grant would have needed to reach approximately R440 by April 2024 to keep pace with inflation.

APA

Institute for Economic Justice (2024). IEJ and #PTG file response to government’s defence in the SRD grant court case. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Statement-IEJ-and-PTG-15-April-2024.pdf

Chicago

Institute for Economic Justice. IEJ and #PTG file response to government’s defence in the SRD grant court case. 2024. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Statement-IEJ-and-PTG-15-April-2024.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Institute for Economic Justice |title=IEJ and #PTG file response to government’s defence in the SRD grant court case |date=15 April 2024 |url=https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Statement-IEJ-and-PTG-15-April-2024.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{instituteforeconomicjustice2024iej, author = {{Institute for Economic Justice}}, title = {{IEJ and \#PTG file response to government’s defence in the SRD grant court case}}, publisher = {Institute for Economic Justice}, year = {2024}, month = apr, url = {https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Statement-IEJ-and-PTG-15-April-2024.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }