---
title: "Flawed Sassa grant algorithms deepen inequality and violate constitutional rights"
description: "Sassa’s automated, digital-only verification system for the Social Relief of Distress grant is erroneously excluding vulnerable South Africans as without human review it fails to capture the true context of informal livelihoods."
type: "NewsArticle"
publisher: "Daily Maverick"
site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za"
section: "SOCIAL (IN)SECURITY OP-ED"
author: "Busisiwe Kamolane-Kgadima and Blossom Matizirofa"
author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/busisiwe-kamolane-kgadima-and-blossom-matizirofa/"
canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-09-10-flawed-sassa-grant-algorithms-deepen-inequality-and-violate-constitutional-rights-1/"
published: "2026-09-10T22:59:31"
lang: "en-ZA"
word_count: 706
---

# Flawed Sassa grant algorithms deepen inequality and violate constitutional rights

> Sassa’s automated, digital-only verification system for the Social Relief of Distress grant is erroneously excluding vulnerable South Africans as without human review it fails to capture the true context of informal livelihoods.

By Busisiwe Kamolane-Kgadima and Blossom Matizirofa · Published 11 September 2026, 00:59 SAST

## Key points
- Sassa’s digital-only, automated bank-verification for SRD grants wrongly excludes vulnerable people by treating any deposit as disqualifying without a chance to explain.
- The system deepens the digital divide and discriminates against those without online access or whose livelihoods rely on informal financial networks.
- GCG and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies told the Supreme Court of Appeal this practice breaches constitutional rights.
- Automation can aid efficiency but must be transparent, reviewable, reliable and designed to protect – not harm – marginalised South Africans.

## Content

Consider this: Your aunt dies suddenly and you, on behalf of your family, are responsible for collecting money for the funeral arrangements. Friends and family send money into your bank account towards these expenses. A week later, the funeral takes place, your aunt is buried and everyone who came to pay their respects returns to their homes.

You are unemployed and have no stable source of income, but you have yourself and other family members in your household to feed, so you make an online application for the [Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant](https://www.gov.za/services/services-residents/social-benefits/social-relief-distress). To your surprise, your application is rejected. The reason? Your bank account reflects that you received funds. You have not been provided with any opportunity to explain these funds. An automated bank verification system has simply disqualified you from accessing the SRD grant.

This scenario and many similar ones are what millions of South Africans face as they navigate the South African Social Security Agency’s (Sassa’s) digital-only application process for the SRD grant. The fully automated process only allows online applications and uses an automated verification system in which funds in your bank account are a decisive determinant of financial means.

This presents several challenges. First, it entrenches the digital divide by unfairly discriminating against millions of South Africans who do not have the necessary digital infrastructure or data to make an online application. Second, the fully automated bank verification system, without allowing further information, lacks the necessary context to make an accurate assessment of true financial means.

The concern is straightforward. A deposit into a bank account does not, by itself, tell us what that money means. It could be income. But it could also be a temporary loan, money transferred within a household, funeral assistance, stokvel contributions or money received on behalf of somebody else without an account. That distinction is significant, especially in a country where many people survive through informal and shared networks of financial support.

This digital-only system is at the centre of an appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 25 August. The [Global Center on AI Governance](https://www.globalcenter.ai/) (GCG), represented by the [Centre for Applied Legal Studies](https://www.wits.ac.za/news/sources/cals-news/2026/human-rights-implications-of-using-algorithms-for-social-grants.html), joined the case as a friend of the court to explain how automated social grant systems affect vulnerable South Africans.

The GCG argued that the constitutional rights to social security, just administrative action, equality, and dignity together impose a heightened duty of care when automating welfare decisions.

The submission argued that any algorithmic welfare system must be procedurally fair, non-discriminatory, and tailored to South Africa’s informal economy. It added that the design aligns with Section 71 of the Protection of Personal Information Act, which limits purely automated decision-making and guarantees citizens the right to human intervention and clear explanations.

To pass constitutional muster, automated systems used to determine access to social assistance must be reliable, transparent and capable of being meaningfully challenged. Seemingly “neutral” digital systems can reproduce structural disadvantage when they rely on inaccurate data, blunt proxies and assumptions, or data without context to reflect people’s actual circumstances.

This is important because the SRD grant is not simply another service from the government, but was established to help people facing serious material challenges who could not meet their most basic needs. The grant continues to close this gap for anyone without a job or consistent source of income. Being erroneously excluded from receiving this relief is not a minor error or inconvenience. It could mean going to bed without food and not having money to pay for necessities such as water and electricity.

The problem is not whether the government should use automated and algorithmic technology. Automation clearly offers key efficiency gains for public institutions handling millions of applications. The pursuit of efficiency, however, does not erode or negate the government’s constitutional obligations.

Automation by the state must still comply with constitutional precepts such as the rights to just administration, equality and dignity. The deployment of automation by the government must, therefore, seek to enforce rights, protect the marginalised and serve – not harm – the people of this country. **DM**

*Busisiwe Kamolane-Kgadima is the deputy director and Blossom Matizirofa is a candidate legal practitioner at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, Wits University.*