Although the South African state manages a number of redistribution and poverty reduction measures (such as free water allocation and public housing), social subsidies are by far the largest of these. The outcome of the landmark decision in this case has therefore played an enormous role in the fight against poverty by improving the timely redistribution of income to poor households in the form of subsidies. The amounts paid, the sheer number of scholarship holders and the extent of poverty and unemployment make social benefits a fundamentally important intervention in South Africa. For the 2017/18 financial year, the total amount paid in the form of grants is expected to exceed R150 billion. Without the Court`s decision, the impact of non-payment of social subsidies to vulnerable and poor households would have been severe, affecting some 17 million South Africans during this period, more than 11 million of whom are under the age of 18 (Mawson 2017; Dentlinger, 2017). Another historical implication of the court`s decision, which is worth mentioning, is the transfer of subsidy payments from CPS subsidiary Grindrod Bank to commercial banks, which could further reduce cases of `illegal` illegal `immoral` deductions from the bank accounts of [Sassa beneficiaries]“ (Hyman 2017). The marketing of the products (insurance policy, loans, loan repayments, airtime and electricity) of the service provider`s sister companies to the beneficiaries not only affected the beneficiaries` personal data, but also promoted exploitation. Social benefits – including child support allowances, care allowances, disability allowances, old-age pensions and other forms of social assistance – support not only their direct beneficiaries, but also entire households. The number of recipients of social assistance therefore far exceeds the number of beneficiaries.
Had the Constitutional Court not intervened, these households would have remained destitute and would likely face even worse food insecurity than usual, as they often live from hand to mouth. This is all the more the reason why the Ministry of Social Development and its minister, Bathabile Dlamini, could be considered negligent by leaving the issue of payments in limbo for a period of five years . In its remarks, the Black Sash Trust relies on case law to increase the importance of the appointment of independent observers by the courts.  None of the parties objected to the appointment of independent observers.  Corruption Watch was a friend of the court in AllPay`s original litigation. Given that the Minister and SASSA believe that their conduct in departing from the reparation order does not legally compel them to be held accountable in court, the perspective offered by Corruption Watch will help the court determine the correct position. Corruption Watch is admitted as a friend of the court.  Cpc also advised SASSA in May 2016 that it may be preferable for SASSA to renew CPC`s current contract to avoid disruptions in the payment process. In 2016, SASSA obtained three legal opinions from various senior lawyers. All of them warned SASSA in different terms that it was in difficulty because it would not be able to pay the subsidies itself and that it would have to go to the Court of Justice to inform it of the situation. The first comment was received by SASSA in June 2016, the second in October 2016 and another in November 2016. The Minister was informed that SASSA could not disburse the grants until October 2016.
14.5 The only two questions answered by the Minister. On the face of it, the undisclosed information interfered with the Minister`s case of postponing it; Fear of them as a reason for secrecy is therefore more easily recommended than any other reason. So, for me, that`s „the reason the minister didn`t communicate. that these persons were appointed in their own way and that they were to report directly to them. 8. The reports submitted by the Minister and SASSA in accordance with paragraph 7 shall include, inter alia, the time limits applicable to the various outcomes that form part of the plan, whether the deadlines have been met and, if not, why this is the case and what is being done to remedy the situation. 14.2 In order to answer the question of „why“, I must inevitably consider the Minister`s statement regarding the non-disclosure of the information in question. Their explanation is not convincing and must therefore be rejected: the appointment of workflows and their role were at the heart of the overall respect of the deadline. Therefore, when it comes to something related to the crisis, it is difficult to understand how the minister can rightly omit the issue of the appointment of workers, their role, who appointed them, when and to whom they reported; Especially if it was she who ordered their appointment, identified some people to be appointed and ordered them to report directly to her.