Faith organisations are involved in a battle to retain their independence from government control and interference.
The driving force behind the government is the CRL Rights Commission, which in March announced that it would be engaging in nationwide consultations within the Christian sector, the establishment of a Section 22 Committee for African Traditional Religion, and continued efforts to expand similar processes to other faith communities.
The announced timeline and structure indicate that it is continuing with a legally contested process that remains constitutionally questionable and substantively unchanged.
SA does not need new powers to regulate religion. It needs the political will to enforce the laws we already have, and the discipline to respect the constitutional limits on state authority.
The lawfulness of the Section 22 committee is under challenge before the high court.
Its representation, inclusivity and procedural integrity are strongly disputed.
The CRL’s own documentation shows there has been no deviation from the stated objective of developing a legislative framework that would fundamentally affect the right to religious freedom.
The process keeps advancing despite the serious legal and constitutional concerns that remain before the courts.
The CRL chair has suggested that a legal opinion obtained through parliament supports the continuation of its process.
Whether a process may continue pending litigation is not the same question as whether the process is lawful.
The legality is currently before the courts in litigation brought by the South African Church Defenders and the Muslim Lawyers’ Association.
The constitution requires that the least restrictive means be used when limiting fundamental rights.
Where existing laws are sufficient, additional regulation targeting a specific sector, particularly one as constitutionally protected as religion, raises serious constitutional concerns.
If it is not lawful, the process and anything flowing from it are liable to be set aside.
The CRL should press pause while the courts consider this matter.
The CRL has nevertheless made it clear that it intends to proceed.
The CRL chair stated that the “train keeps moving” and that the process would not stop unless the Constitutional Court ruled against it.
Given the timeframes involved in constitutional litigation, this raises serious due process concerns.
When the CRL pushes forward with a process that is under legal challenge, it is clear they intend to complete this before the courts have ruled, potentially undermining the purpose of judicial oversight.
Despite assurances that the Final Draft Self-Regulatory Framework for the Christian Sector is merely a starting point for consultation, the document itself indicates a predetermined trajectory.
Section 2.3 expressly provides for the development of a legislative framework, including the establishment of a national Christian Sector Practice Council, the registration of religious institutions and leaders, and the implementation of a code of conduct.
This is not an open-ended consultation, but one framed around specified regulatory deliverables.
FOR SA reiterates that the country already has a comprehensive legal framework addressing abuse, fraud, exploitation and harm to vulnerable persons.
Religious freedom has never been a defence for criminal conduct.
The challenge lies in enforcement, not in the absence of regulation.
A genuine self-regulatory progress has already been established within the religious sector itself.
Following extensive consultation and parliamentary engagements between 2017 and 2018, a code of conduct for religious practitioners was developed by and for faith communities.
Grounded in the Religious Freedom Charter, this is a voluntary, sector-led approach to accountability.
The South African Community of Faith-based Fraternals and Federations (SACOFF), established in 2021, now represents more than 24,000 churches and more than 10-million Christians.
These developments have not been meaningfully recognised in the CRL’s current process.
SACOFF was excluded from the launch of the Section 22 committee.
The independence of this committee is also in question.
It is established, mandated and funded by the CRL, operates within a CRL-defined framework, and will report to the CRL before submission to parliament.
Claims that the process represents “over 40-million Christians” are not supported by facts.
The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa has faced significant internal repudiation, and the International Federation of Charismatic Churches has not endorsed the CRL’s approach.
The South African Council of Churches (SACC) is not a member of the Section 22 committee.
More broadly, significant segments of the faith community, across multiple traditions, have raised objections to both the process and its objectives.
The expansion of the Section 22 committees to other faith sectors further confirms that this is not a limited initiative, but part of a broader regulatory agenda.
The South African Hindu Maha Sabha and a major Islamic body have already rejected participation.
FOR SA remains committed to upholding the constitutional right to freedom of religion, protecting vulnerable people through existing legal mechanisms, and engaging constructively with stakeholders to strengthen good governance and accountability in the sector.
FOR SA will continue to monitor the Section 22 process closely, engage the government and parliament, raise legitimate concerns through lawful means, equip the religious sector to understand and defend its constitutional rights, and encourage meaningful public participation throughout the process.
• Michael Swain, executive director of FOR SA
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.