- A man incarcerated for more than two years was denied UIF benefits after officials failed to properly consider evidence explaining the late submission of his claim.
- The Public Protector found maladministration arising from the department’s failure to apply condonation standards fairly and lawfully.
- The UIF has been ordered to revise its procedures and train officials to prevent arbitrary decision-making in future cases.
The Department of Employment and Labour unlawfully shut the door on an unemployed man who had spent more than two years behind bars for a crime he did not commit, denying him access to UIF benefits.
In a damning finding, the Public Protector concluded that the department’s failure to properly consider clear evidence of incarceration and eventual acquittal amounted to maladministration, exposing a system more committed to rigid deadlines than constitutional fairness, human dignity, and the purpose of social security itself.
According to the Public Protector, the investigation “found that maladministration occurred due to the department’s initial failure to adequately consider evidence of the complainant’s incarceration and acquittal,” which directly resulted in “the improper rejection of the complainant’s application for condonation.”
The complainant had been employed at a lodge until his arrest on 11 January 2021. He remained in custody until his acquittal on 24 May 2023. These facts were central to the complaint, as they explained why the UIF claim could not be lodged within the statutory period.
A claim rejected without proper consideration
The statement records that the complainant’s UIF claim “was submitted late because of his incarceration,” yet it was rejected for exceeding “the 12-month deadline under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.” Despite the exceptional circumstances, the department dismissed the claim and proceeded to reject the appeal.
The Public Protector found that the appeal process itself was flawed, noting that it “ignored the circumstances surrounding his detention.” This failure meant that the department did not properly apply its discretion when assessing whether condonation should be granted.
As a result, a claimant who had been unable to act due to prolonged incarceration was treated no differently from an ordinary late applicant, despite clear evidence explaining the delay.
It was only after the Public Protector intervened on 28 May 2024 that the matter was revisited. Following the submission of court documentation confirming the complainant’s incarceration and acquittal, the department reversed its position.
The statement confirms that the department approved the claim on 17 September 2024 and paid out “R16 439.68,” thereby “resolving the matter for the complainant.” This outcome came more than three years after the complainant lost his employment and more than a year after his acquittal.
Systemic weaknesses exposed
The investigation did not stop at the individual outcome. The Public Protector found that the department’s failure was not isolated but flowed from structural weaknesses within its internal framework.
Specifically, the investigation revealed that the department’s shortcomings stemmed from “inadequate review of its Standard Operating Procedures/Guidelines,” as well as “a lack of clear criteria for ‘just cause’ under the UI Act.”
The absence of defined standards, the statement warned, creates a risk of “arbitrary decisions” and undermines lawful administration.
Constitutional breach and remedial action
The Public Protector further found that these shortcomings breached constitutional obligations, stating that the lack of clarity and guidance resulted in conduct that was inconsistent with “the constitutional principles of transparency under Section 195 of the Constitution.”
To address this, the Commissioner of the UIF has been directed to act decisively. Within 60 days, the commissioner must “review Standard Operating Procedures, guidelines, and circulars to clearly define ‘just cause’ and provide processing guidance for late appeals.”
In addition, UIF officials “must receive training within 60 days of the adoption of the new protocols,” with the express aim of preventing a recurrence of similar failures.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
