Press release by FOR SA
Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) has responded to the CRL Rights Commission’s
characterisation of the recent COGTA Portfolio Committee engagement, cautioning that the
proceedings do not represent consensus or a mandate for state-backed regulation of religion.
Significant constitutional concerns remain unresolved.
Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) has noted the CRL Rights Commission’s media
statement on the recent COGTA Portfolio Committee engagement. However, we disagree the
Commission’s characterisation of those proceedings as a significant development in favour of its
Section 22 regulatory proposals. We note that Parliament’s own statement was careful and
measured. It acknowledged that religious freedom and accountability are not mutually exclusive,
and that concerns remain about the constitutionality and inclusivity of the CRL’s Section 22 process.
It called for further engagement between those who support and those who oppose the proposals.
That is not a green light for the CRL. It is a warning light.
A meeting of supporters that exposed continued division
The COGTA Portfolio Committee meeting was specifically convened for those who were broadly
supportive of the CRL’s Section 22 process, or who had not yet had the opportunity to present. Yet
even in that setting, support was far from decisive. An analysis of the proceedings records that, out
of 50 speakers, only 21 supported the CRL’s proposals with no or little reservation. Fifteen were
clearly opposed. A further 14 were either ambivalent, raised concerns, or supported the process
only conditionally.
Importantly, a number of those counted as supportive were organisations primarily concerned with
gender-based violence and femicide in religious or community settings. Their concerns are serious
and must be heard. But support for stronger action against gender-based violence should not be
treated as endorsement of the CRL’s wider proposal to create a state-backed system of registration,
recognition and sanctions for religious leaders and organisations.
Even in a meeting framed around supportive voices, more than half of the speakers were either
opposed, concerned, supportive subject to reservations, or unconvinced.
“The CRL should not mistake a managed platform for a mandate from the faith community,” said
Michael Swain, Executive Director of FOR SA. “The proceedings did not show broad support for
state-backed regulation of religion. They showed that the CRL’s proposals remain unresolved,
contested and constitutionally problematic.”
Abuse demands a response, but the right one
FOR SA has consistently stated that abuse, exploitation, gender-based violence and criminal
conduct in religious settings must be confronted clearly and decisively. No constitutional right
protects criminality. No religious leader is above the law. No faith community should ever become a
hiding place for abuse.
But addressing abuse in religious settings is a different question from whether South Africa should
create a state-backed system for registering religious practitioners and institutions that would
enforce a state-approved religious code through a statutory or quasi-statutory structure. The two
must not be blurred. There are better, more targeted and constitutionally safer ways to address
abuse: proper enforcement of existing criminal law, protection orders, mandatory reporting
obligations where applicable, and voluntary ethical standards developed by faith communities
themselves.
“The answer to abuse is not vague religious regulation,” said Swain. “The answer is the proper
enforcement of existing law, targeted protection for vulnerable people, and ethical accountability
developed by faith communities themselves.”
The Section 22 Committee is not independent of the CRL
The characterisation of the Section 22 Committee as an independent body engaged in voluntary
self-regulation is also not sustainable. The Committee was established under the CRL Rights
Commission Act. Its members were selected and paid by the CRL. Its Terms of Reference were
developed by the CRL without consultation with the leaders of the vast majority of the Christian faith
community. It reports to the CRL, which can amend its members and mandate at will. Its draft
framework does not merely propose voluntary ethical reflection. It points toward a legislative
framework, with compulsory registration of religious institutions and practitioners, a sector-wide
code, and sanctions for non-compliance.
That is state regulation of religion, regardless of what it is called.
Representivity also remains a serious unresolved concern. Major Pentecostal, Charismatic and
other formations, including the Apostolic Faith Mission, Assemblies of God and Full Gospel
churches, have raised strong objections. SACOFF, representing over 25,000 member churches,
has opposed state-backed regulation.
But it goes further than that. Some of the very organisations the CRL has previously claimed as
supporters did not offer unqualified support at last week’s meeting. The South African Council of
Churches (SACC) raised no fewer than six concerns before its time expired. The International
Federation of Christian Churches (IFCC), founded by the late Pastor Ray McCauley, also raised
strong objections to the process. Their concerns were not minor administrative points. They
addressed the structure’s composition, the marginalisation of certain groups, church autonomy,
vague terminology, overreach, and the legislative trajectory of the whole exercise.
When organisations previously claimed as supporters are themselves raising serious objections, it
is very hard to describe the outcome as a mandate.
An alternative already exists
South Africa does not need to start from scratch. The South African Charter of Religious Rights and
Freedoms, adopted by the religious sector in 2010, and the Code of Conduct for Religions in South
Africa, developed in 2019 through the South African Council for the Protection and Promotion of
Religious Rights and Freedoms (SACRRF), already provide a community-owned foundation. It is
voluntary, constitutionally grounded, and capable of contextualisation across different faith and
governance traditions. This is what genuine self-regulation looks like.
FOR SA calls on the CRL to remain within its constitutional and statutory mandate, on Parliament
to exercise proper oversight of the Section 22 process, and on faith communities to take
responsibility for accountability through voluntary, community-owned ethical frameworks.
“The way forward is not state control dressed up as self-regulation,” said Swain. “The way forward
is accountable freedom, existing law properly enforced, and ethical standards developed by faith
communities themselves.”
The CRL may wish to read the recent parliamentary engagement as a victory. It would be wiser to
read it as a warning.
Click here to KEEP UPDATED on the latest news by subscribing to our FREE weekly newsletter.
> Please support Christian media and journalism in South Africa. Help us to spread the Word of God and take a stand for the truth by making a donation to our ministry. We appreciate your support. Click here to take hands with JOY! Magazine.
Date published: 05/06/2026
Feature image: Sourced from Magnific for illustration purposes only
DISCLAIMER
JOY! News is a Christian news portal that shares pre-published articles by writers around the world. Each article is sourced and linked to the origin, and each article is credited with the author’s name. Although we do publish many articles that have been written in-house by JOY! journalists, we do not exclusively create our own content. Any views or opinions presented on this website are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
