Isobel Frye
A Second Look
The two recent articles by Roshila Pillay (“North West suspends pension for disabled”, June 1 to 7; “They’ve taken away our dignity”, June 8 to 14) highlight the desperate plight of disabled persons dependent on the state for grant income when the income is withheld.
One of the ongoing problems with payment of grants is the beneficiaries’ lack of information and the disempowering effect of this ignorance that prevents them from challenging actions of, or information given by, department officials.
In December last year the Department of Social Development published a booklet called Policy on the Review of All Grant Types. In terms of this stated policy, there are two types of review of grants: administrative and medical.
The former is to review “only the essential aspects of the general, financial and pay point information such as the marital status, means test, payment contractor and pay point”. This review is done annually, except where beneficiaries collect payment through biometrics, in which case it is done every five years.
The medical reviews for disability and care dependency grants for children should be done only every five years. Temporary disability grants are not subject to a review, but terminate on the expiry of the grant. The beneficiary must be advised of the expiry date at the inception of the grant and thereafter reminded three months prior to the termination.
Reading both the policy booklet and the regulations promulgated in terms of the Social Assistance Act (59 of 1992), it appears that a grant can only be suspended as a result of a review, or if the beneficiary has failed to supply requested information at the review.
If the grant is suspended, the beneficiary must be given reasons in writing for the suspension, with advice of his or her right to apply for the restoration of the grant within 90 days from the date of suspension.
It is, however, completely ineffective to give illiterate people written reasons in a language they cannot understand. Both Minister of Social Development Zola Skweyiya, in your first article, and Justice van Rensburg, in the case of Bushula NJ and others v the Permanent Secretary, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape provincial government and another, Case 774 of 1999, held that proper notice of an impending suspension must be communicated to a person in a manner and language that they understand.
From the two recent reports, it is clear that many beneficiaries have no knowledge of the reasons for the suspensions of their grants: this is not acceptable. This contravenes the spirit of the Constitution and undermines the well-being and inherent dignity of each beneficiary whose often sole livelihood is withdrawn without the beneficiary knowing why.
Isobel Frye is national advocacy manager for the Black Sash Trust