South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal heard case on Sassa algorithms
South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal heard an appeal on 25 August in a case concerning the digital application system for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) payment, administered by the South African Social Security Agency, Sassa. As Daily Maverick reports, the system accepts applications only online and automatically checks applicants’ bank accounts to assess their financial situation.
Funds received in an account
The authors of the article note that the automated check may result in a payment being denied to a person whose account received funds, without an opportunity to explain their origin. Such deposits may not be regular income but a temporary loan, a transfer within a household, funeral assistance, contributions to a stokvel — an informal shared savings system — or money received on behalf of a person without a bank account.
In the authors’ view, the system does not take into account the context of informal and shared financial networks through which many South Africans survive. They also believe that an exclusively digital method of applying exacerbates digital inequality for people who lack the necessary digital infrastructure or funds for mobile internet.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
Position of the parties to the case
The Global Center on AI Governance, which represented the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, joined the case as a friend of the court. The organisation argued that constitutional rights to social security, just administrative action, equality and dignity require heightened caution when automating decisions on social benefits.
The organisation’s submission states that algorithmic systems in the social assistance sector must be procedurally fair, non-discriminatory and adapted to the conditions of South Africa’s informal economy. It also mentions Section 71 of the Protection of Personal Information Act, which restricts solely automated decision-making and guarantees the right to human intervention and comprehensible explanations.
The authors stress that automated systems must be reliable, transparent and enable meaningful appeals against decisions. In their assessment, an erroneous denial of SRD may deprive unemployed people of funds for basic needs, including food, water and electricity.
