The debate over the future of South Africa’s Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant is gaining fresh attention as the National Treasury considers major changes that could reshape how the support is given to millions of unemployed citizens. The proposed changes include linking the monthly grant to employment opportunities and skills development programmes, a move officials say could help beneficiaries find long-term economic stability. However, critics and civil society groups are warning that the plan could worsen hardship in a country already battling very high unemployment and rising living costs.
The SRD grant, which currently pays R370 every month, has become a major source of survival for about eight million South Africans. For many households, especially those with no steady income, the money helps to buy basic food items and cover transport or other small daily needs. Although the National Treasury has confirmed that funding for the grant is secured until March 2027, there is still uncertainty about what will happen after that date and whether the programme will continue in its current form.
Concerns over the future of the SRD grant were raised during an interview on radio station 702 by independent social grant activist Elizabeth Raiters. She said discussions within government about the period after 2027 have created anxiety among beneficiaries and advocacy groups. According to her, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana had earlier indicated that government departments were exploring ways to link financial support for working-age adults to skills training and employment programmes.
While the idea may look positive on paper, Raiters warned that the reality on the ground could be very different. She explained that most government employment and skills initiatives are usually designed for younger people, mainly those between the ages of 18 and 35. This, she said, raises serious questions about the future of older unemployed citizens who depend on the SRD grant. “What happens to those above 35? They will be left behind,” she said.
Raiters argued that many people could end up with no income at all if access to the SRD grant is tied to programmes they either do not qualify for or cannot reach due to location, limited slots, or lack of information. She stressed that unemployment remains extremely high in South Africa, making it unrealistic to assume that everyone can be absorbed into jobs or training schemes. For millions of people, she said, the SRD grant is not a bonus or comfort but a basic tool for survival.
She also questioned the timing of such reforms, noting that the unemployment crisis has persisted for decades. According to her, ordinary people on the streets rely on the grant every month, even though the amount is very small. “It is little, but it is a lifeline,” Raiters said, adding that removing or restricting it could deepen poverty and social distress.
From a budget perspective, the National Treasury has allocated R35.2 billion to fund the SRD grant in the 2025/26 financial year. This level of spending has raised concerns about long-term sustainability, especially as government faces pressure from debt servicing, infrastructure needs, and other social programmes. However, Raiters believes there are alternative ways to raise revenue without cutting support for the poor.
She suggested that higher taxes on wealthy South Africans could help fund social protection programmes. According to her, the rich are not being taxed enough, and better tax enforcement and progressive taxation could provide additional funds. She also highlighted the wider economic role the SRD grant plays, saying the money does not just help individuals but also supports small businesses and retailers.
Beneficiaries, she explained, spend the grant mainly on basic food and household items, helping to keep money circulating in the local economy. Removing the grant, she warned, could hurt both poor households and small businesses that depend on daily consumer spending. Rising food prices have further reduced what the R370 can buy, strengthening calls by activists to convert the SRD grant into a proper basic income grant.
Raiters said a basic income grant would help people meet their most basic needs in a more meaningful way, especially as inflation continues to erode purchasing power. She dismissed arguments that government should only focus on job creation, pointing out that past efforts have not solved the unemployment problem. Civil society groups have echoed similar concerns, warning that strict conditions could exclude many vulnerable people.
The Treasury, on its part, has acknowledged these concerns and insists that any reforms would aim to promote inclusion, not exclusion. However, Minister Godongwana has repeatedly rejected proposals for a wealth tax, warning that it could drive high-income earners out of the country. Treasury estimates suggest that if just 10 percent of wealthy taxpayers emigrated, South Africa could lose up to R49 billion annually in personal income tax, reducing funds available for social programmes.
As discussions continue, the future of the SRD grant remains uncertain, with millions of South Africans watching closely to see how policy decisions will affect their daily survival.
