South Africa's Top Court to Rule on Constitutional Breach in Automated Welfare System

South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal will decide whether the government’s automated welfare system violated the constitution, after the High Court ruled in January 2025 that the digital vetting process breached constitutional protections for millions of grant applicants.

The case concerns the Social Relief of Distress grant, a monthly payment of R370 (approximately US$23) introduced in May 2020 to support the country’s most economically vulnerable citizens. When the government shifted administration of the programme in April 2022, it introduced regulations making online applications mandatory and treating automated verification systems as definitive in determining eligibility. Those systems checked applicants’ bank records and government databases to confirm they had no income and qualified for support.

The consequences were immediate and severe. When the grant launched, approximately 16 million people received payments. By 2022, after the digital-only process took effect, that number had plummeted to 5.6 million. The government simultaneously reduced the grant budget by billions of rands.

The Institute for Economic Justice, a South African think tank, filed suit in July 2023 alongside #PayTheGrants, a civil society movement. The plaintiffs argued that the regulations violated South Africa’s constitutional commitment to progressively realizing access to social assistance, and that millions of legally entitled applicants faced irrational, arbitrary and unfair denial of benefits because of how the automated systems operated.

The High Court agreed. Its January 2025 ruling declared certain regulations unconstitutional and invalid, specifically those authorizing automated bank verification and database checks. The government has since appealed, placing the question of algorithmic decision-making in public welfare administration squarely before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

What changed when automation took over: human judgment was replaced by systems that could not distinguish between a bank deposit representing income and a temporary loan or money held on behalf of someone else. The court found that databases the systems relied upon also contained errors and outdated information, likely indicating employment where none existed. Automated systems can only be as reliable as their underlying data, and in this case the data was demonstrably flawed.

The High Court identified three constitutional rights affected by the automated process: the right to equality, the right to social security, and the state’s broader obligation under the bill of rights. Accountability was further undermined by the appeal process itself, which was online-only, restricting redress for unsuccessful applicants who lacked digital access or literacy.

The ruling carries implications well beyond social assistance. The Department of Education, the Department of Home Affairs and the South African Police Service are all at various stages of integrating automated digital processes into their operations. AI-enabled CCTV surveillance cameras already operating across the country demonstrate how these risks have materialized in other domains, including the private sector, where public oversight is even more limited.

If the government’s appeal succeeds, it could establish legal precedent that prioritizes digital efficiency over constitutional safeguards, unless the matter is escalated to the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision will determine whether an automated system can lawfully serve as the primary mechanism for deciding who receives welfare support in South Africa, and how far government agencies may delegate that judgment to an algorithm.