South Africa’s public sector is rapidly adopting biometric and algorithmic tools to improve service delivery. From home affairs’ smart ID roll-out to the South African Social Security Agency’s recent mandatory biometric enrolment for grant processing, governments are rightly chasing efficiency and fraud reduction.

But without tight legal guardrails, these technologies concentrate administrative power, create new vectors for exclusion and erode due process protections that underpin the rule of law.

Biometric IDs and automated decision systems can speed verification and cut obvious fraud. But they also shift crucial decisions from people to opaque systems. Practical harms are already visible: failed enrolments blocking grant access, incorrect automated de‑duplication removing legitimate beneficiaries and weak appeal routes when a machine says “no”.

Biometric data is uniquely sensitive – if compromised it cannot be reissued like a password – and the administrative use of such data often proceeds without clear limits on retention, sharing or independent oversight. In a country with high poverty, spatial inequality and heavy reliance on social grants, these failures risk converting technical glitches into violations of fundamental socioeconomic rights.

The Protection of Personal Information Act (Popia) establishes important principles for processing personal data, but it is broad and primarily orientated towards private‑sector compliance. Administrative uses of biometric and algorithmic systems raise distinct concerns:

Decisions taken by public agencies affect access to entitlements and liberty; they therefore require stronger procedural safeguards than commercial profiling.
There is often no meaningful right-of‑review or quick remedy when an automated process wrongly denies a benefit.
National roll-out decisions (for ID cards, biometric enrolment or facial recognition) are framed as technical upgrades, leaving democratic debate and parliamentary scrutiny behind.

South Africa should enact a narrow Administrative Data Protection Act (ADPA) that sits alongside Popia, designed specifically to govern government use of biometric, identity and algorithmic systems.

Its core features should be minimalist but enforceable.

Minimalist but enforceable

Biometrics and identity data may be collected only where strictly necessary to achieve a specified administrative purpose (for example, fraud prevention in grant payments), and only after less intrusive alternatives are exhausted. Mandatory impact assessments (pre‑deployment) must show proportionality and non‑discriminatory effect.

Default retention periods for biometric templates must be short and justified; continuous retention requires strong legal basis and periodic review.

Technical standards for secure storage and breach notification are mandatory; irreversible hashing or template techniques must be preferred over raw image storage.

An independent administrative appeals office with powers to conduct expedited reviews of ID‑related denials (temporary relief within days) must be established, with specialist technical capacity to audit algorithms and biometric matches.

Citizens must be given clear, accessible notice when a decision relied on automated processing and a human‑review right on request.

All public algorithms used for eligibility or exclusion must publish a non‑proprietary “decision manifesto”: data sources, key variables, error rates and known biases. This balances security with public accountability.

Regular, machine‑readable disclosure of aggregated failure/appeal statistics (by region and programme) enables civic monitoring and targeted fixes.

The ADPA should create enforceable penalties for agencies that negligently deny benefits through untested automated systems and mandate remediation for affected individuals, including expedited payments and reputational remedies.

An ADPA targeted at administrative uses preserves the gains from digital IDs – reduced fraud, faster processing, possible cost savings – while protecting the most vulnerable. It reframes the problem: not “stop digitisation” but “design government systems so that technology augments, not substitutes, accountable public administration”.

The emphasis on short retention, independent review and transparency speaks directly to South Africa’s context where exclusion from grants or ID verification failures can mean loss of shelter, food or school fees.

An APDA must:

Require parliamentary scrutiny of major ID/biometric programmes with mandatory public impact statements.
Pilot biometric measures in defined districts with external evaluation before national rollout.
Fund and staff an administrative appeals office with clear timelines for emergency relief in benefits cases.

The rapid adoption of biometric and algorithmic tools in South Africa’s public sector, aimed at enhancing service delivery, often overlooks critical civil liberties, raising concerns about potential governmental misuse for political or ideological ends. As these technologies concentrate administrative power, they create opportunities for abuse, such as discriminatory targeting or the manipulation of data to marginalise specific groups.

The absence of stringent oversight not only threatens the rights of individuals but also undermines the very principles of democracy and accountability. If implemented without robust legal frameworks, there is a risk that these systems could be weaponised, where the government might exploit data to stifle dissent or bolster its authority, ultimately eroding the trust citizens place in public institutions.

Urgent need

This dual threat of exclusion and authoritarianism underscores the urgent need for a legal framework, like the proposed ADPA, that enshrines the values of proportionality, transparency and accountability in the deployment of such powerful technologies.

South Africa need not choose between modernising public services and protecting citizens’ rights. A tightly scoped Administrative Data Protection Act would anchor biometric and algorithmic deployments in rule‑of‑law principles: necessity, proportionality, transparency and remedy.

That modest legal intervention would allow the state to use powerful identification tools without turning administrative efficiency into a new source of exclusion and arbitrary power.