Access to justice in the South African social security system : towards a conceptual approach

• Author: Mathias Nyenti
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC148581
• Published date: 01 January 2013
• Date: 01 January 2013
• Pages: 901-916

901

Access to justice in the South African social

security system: Towards a conceptual

approach

Mathias Nyenti

LLB LLM

Research Coordinator: Centre for International and Comparative Labour and Social

Security Law, Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg

OPSOMMING

Toegang tot Regspleging in die Suid-Afrikaanse Sosiale Sekerheidstelsel: Op

Pad na ’n Konseptuele Benadering

Die Grondwet waarborg aan elkeen die reg op toegang tot sosiale

sekerheid. Dit verplig die staat verder om redelike wetgewende en ander

maatreëls, binne die perke van beskikbare middele, te neem om die

toenemende verwesenliking van die reg op toegang tot sosiale sekerheid

te bewerkstellig. ’n Stelsel wat deur die staat ingestel is om die reg op

toegang tot sosiale sekerheid te verwesenlik, sou onvolledig wees sonder

’n doeltreffende en uitvoerbare stelsel wat gebruikers van die stelsel in

staat stel om geskille wat mag ontstaan, te besleg. So ’n stelsel sou gevolg

moes gee aan die reg op toegang tot die howe (regspleging). Gevolglik

moet ’n sosiale sekerheids-geskilbeslegtingstelsel bestaanbaar wees met

die begrip van toegang tot regpleging, soos beoog in die Grondwet.

Alhoewel die Grondwet nie toegang tot regspleging omskryf nie, dui dit die

benadering wat by die uitleg van die regte in die Handves van Regte

gevolg moet word, aan. Hierdie artikel poog om die begrip van toegang tot

regspleging te ontwikkel vir sover dit van toepassing is op ontvangers van

sosiale sekerheid. Dit beveel ’n breë benadering tot die begrip aan, wat

voorsiening maak vir die instelling van ’n geskilbeslegtingstelsel; en die

aanname van maatreëls gerig op die bemagtiging van ontvangers.

1Introduction

The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to have access to social

security (including social assistance).1 It further enjoins the state to take

reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources,

to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to social

security.2 According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the

right to lodge a complaint and the right of appeal in social security

matters ensure compliance with and the effective implementation of the

rights of insured persons and of due process.3 Therefore, a system set up

1 S 27(1)(c) Constitution.

2 S 27(2) Constitution.

3ILO Social security and the rule of law (General Survey concerning social

security instruments in light of the 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a

Fair Globalization) (Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application

of Conventions and Recommendations (articles 19, 22 and 35 of the

Constitution) Report III (Part 1B)) International Labour Conference, 100th

Session, 2011 (2011) par 403.

902 2013 De Jure

by the state to realise the right of access to social security would be

incomplete without an effective and efficient system that enables users

of the system to resolve any disputes that might arise. Such a system

would give effect to the right of access to courts (justice) which is also

protected in the Constitution.4

One of the three components of section 34 is the guarantee of everyone with

a dispute to be able to bring the dispute to a court or tribunal to seek redress

(right of access to justice).5 This is to ensure protection against actions by the

state and other persons which deny access to courts or other fora.6 Therefore,

a social security dispute resolution system establish to give effect to the right

of access to justice in terms of section 34 must be consistent with the concept

of access to justice as envisaged by the Constitution.

2 Evolution of the Concept of Access to Justice

The concept of access to justice has evolved over the years from a narrow

definition that refers to access to legal services and other state services

(access to the courts or tribunals that adjudicate or mediate) to a broader

one that includes social justice, economic justice and environmental

justice.7 This broadening of concept was due to the belief that its

confinement to the courts or tribunals that adjudicate or mediate was

considered to be too narrow a definition, although courts or tribunals that

adjudicate or mediate were a very important component of access to

justice. It is argued that (in the case of South Africa):

[j]ustice is not the exclusive preserve of the courts. The Constitution … is

designed to achieve justice in the broader sense including social justice and

various functionaries including government, independent institutions, the

private sector and indeed civil society take on a special responsibility for the

achievement of justice and thus access to justice is more, much more tha[n]

simply access to courts.8

However, social security dispute resolution systems, as required by the

right (of access) to social security, are concerned with the resolution of

disputes in a fair public hearing by a court or another independent and

impartial tribunal or forum. In this instance, the concept thus relates to

access to justice in the sense of access to the courts or tribunals that

adjudicate or mediate social security disputes.

4 S 34 Constitution states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that

can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing

before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial

tribunal or forum.

5 The other components of the right are for courts, tribunals or forums that

resolve disputes to be independent and impartial in the execution of their

duties; and for disputes to be resolved in a fair and public hearing.

6 Currie & De Waal The Bill of Rights Handbook Cape Town (2005) 704.

7 Open Society Foundation for South Africa Access to Justice Round-Table

Discussion (Parktonian Hotel, Johannesburg 2003-07-22) 5.

8 Kollapen “Access to Justice within the South African context” Keynote

Address to Access to Justice Round-Table Discussion 5.