South Africa's Social Relief of Distress Grant Ruled Unconstitutional

• South Africa's Social Relief of Distress grant was found unconstitutional by the High Court in January 2025.
• The government appealed the ruling and the matter is set for hearing in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
• The case highlights concerns about the use of automated decision-making systems in social assistance programs, including opacity and limited avenues for redress.

In January 2025, the High Court agreed, declaring certain regulations unconstitutional and invalid.

In May 2020, South Africa launched its Social Relief of Distress grant, aimed at providing temporary relief to almost one-third of the population. The grant was initially administered under the Disaster Management Act but was later shifted to the Social Assistance Act in April 2022. This change led to a drastic reduction in successful applicants, from 16 million at inception to 5.6 million by 2022. As a result, the government was able to cut the grant budget by billions of rands. The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants brought a court case against the government, arguing that the digitization process did not adhere to constitutional obligations. In January 2025, the High Court agreed, declaring certain regulations unconstitutional and invalid.

South Africa's constitution allows for the progressive realization of access to social assistance, meaning socioeconomic rights cannot be realized immediately but over time. The Institute for Economic Justice argued that the regulations and application procedure resulted in the irrational, arbitrary, and unfair denial of social assistance to millions of people legally entitled to receive it. Automated decision-making systems rely on algorithmic reasoning or machine learning to come to conclusions based on available datasets. This raises concerns about making decision processes opaque and limiting avenues for redress or challenge.

The outcome of the Supreme Court of Appeal's hearing may set a precedent for the use of automated decision-making systems in social assistance programs across Africa. The case highlights broader concerns about the risks associated with automation, including the potential for biased or discriminatory decisions. As AI systems become increasingly relied upon for decision-making, it is essential to consider the implications of these technologies on social welfare programs. Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor the outcome of this case, as it may have far-reaching consequences for the use of automated decision-making systems in Africa.

Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor the outcome of the Supreme Court of Appeal's hearing, as it may set a precedent for the use of automated decision-making systems in social assistance programs across Africa.

Source: Original reporting via Inside a South African Court Case