Press release provided by Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA)
With the Local Government Elections on 4 November 2026, FOR SA asked each political party represented in the National Assembly where it stands on State regulation of religion. This post sets out what the parties told us, what some have said publicly elsewhere, who has not yet responded, and whose position remains unclear.
FOR SA is a non-partisan organisation. We do not recommend how anyone should vote, and nothing in this post should be read as doing so. We aim to put the parties’ own words in front of you so that you can read and consider them for yourself.
What we asked
On 9 October 2026, FOR SA wrote to each political party represented in the National Assembly. The letter, which was identical for every party, asked for a written position, suitable for publication, on the CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 process. It enclosed a schedule of questions.
The central question was whether a party supports State regulation of religion in any form, including a statutory council, a registration scheme or a licensing scheme administered wholly or partly by religious-sector representatives. We defined our terms. “Self-regulation” meant standards that religious communities adopt, own and administer themselves, not established, funded or enforced by the State or a statutory body, and which anyone is free to leave without legal penalty. “State regulation of religion” meant any such system that is established, mandated, supervised, funded or enforced by the State or a statutory body, even if religious leaders run it and even if it is called self-regulation.
Eleven further questions tested what each answer means in practice, including whether a party would support legislation later, once a voluntary code exists, and whether it considers a statutory council led by religious leaders to be State regulation or self-regulation.
Matrix: State regulation of religion and legislation (as of 26 October 2026)
The matrix below scores each party on one question only: whether, according to the statements we considered, the party opposes or supports State regulation of religion, including legislation or a legislative framework for it. It does not score support for religious freedom generally.
Scoring key
- ✔ means the party stated in terms, in a response or a verified public statement, that it opposes State regulation of religion and does not support legislation or a legislative framework for it.
- ✘ means the party stated in terms that it supports legislation or a legislative framework regulating religion.
- ? means anything else: no response, a general statement without detail, a statement that supports some form of regulation but is unclear about legislation, or an answer that is qualified or ambiguous.
A question mark is not a finding that a party supports State regulation. A tick records what a party said. It is not an endorsement or a prediction of how the party will act in the future. The matrix shows, for each party, whether the score comes from a response to our letter or from a prior public statement made independently of our questions. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Political Parties
African National Congress (ANC) ✔
No response received. Earlier statement considered.
- Said it has neither called for nor advocated State control of churches and their religious affairs.
- Said churches and religious institutions should be free to govern and regulate their own affairs within the Constitution.
- Not in specific terms regarding legislation.
- FOR SA’s impression is that the ANC does not support legislation that would place churches under a statutory regulatory body or framework of the kind proposed by the CRL. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Democratic Alliance (DA) ✔
Responded to FOR SA’s letter.
- Supports genuinely voluntary self-regulation.
- Opposes compulsory State regulation of religion.
- Says a statutory religious council is State regulation even where religious leaders run it.
- Opposes legislation creating compulsory religious oversight councils, licensing, mandatory codes of conduct, or sanctions restricting freedom of religion.
- Would assess future legislation against the Constitution but oppose legislation making participation compulsory. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) ?
Indicated it will respond; not yet received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) ?
Indicated it will respond; not yet received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) ?
Indicated it will respond; not yet received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Patriotic Alliance (PA) ?
No response received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) ✔
- Said a statutory body led by religious leaders is State regulation, not genuine self-regulation.
- Answered “no” when asked whether it supports legislation.
- Said religion should not be subject to State regulation in any form. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
ActionSA ✔
- Opposes overbearing State regulation.
- Says genuine self-regulation must be voluntary.
- Does not support legislation creating oversight councils, registration, licensing, or sanctions regimes.
- Future proposals must demonstrate compelling need and constitutional compliance. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) ✔
- Says a statutory body led by religious leaders would be State regulation.
- Opposes any outcome of the Section 22 process being given legal force through legislation.
- Does not support a two-stage approach. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
United Democratic Movement (UDM) ✔
- Regards a statutory body led by religious leaders as State regulation administered by sector representatives.
- Says genuine self-regulation must be voluntary.
- Does not support legislation giving the State authority over religious institutions, leadership, doctrine, or practices. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
African Transformation Movement (ATM) ✔
- Says a statutory body led by religious leaders is State regulation.
- Supports voluntary self-regulation where participation is genuinely voluntary.
- Does not support legislation establishing or empowering a religious-sector regulator.
- Notes that laws of general application dealing with crime, fraud, and abuse remain appropriate. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Al Jama-ah ?
No response received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Build One South Africa (BOSA) ✔
- Rejects the idea that the State should regulate religion.
- Rejects the CRL Rights Commission approach.
- Says fraud and abuse should be addressed through existing laws.
- Warns against laws regulating what is preached or limiting religious practice. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
National Coloured Congress (NCC) ?
No response received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Rise Mzansi ?
No response received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
GOOD ?
No response received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) ?
No response received. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
United Africans Transformation (UAT) ?
- Indicated it will respond.
- Said its focus has been on socio-economic and children’s rights and it will consider the questions after the elections. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Who has answered
Seven parties responded in writing to FOR SA’s letter:
- ACDP
- ActionSA
- ATM
- BOSA
- DA
- FF Plus
- UDM
The ANC did not respond directly, but FOR SA considered a media statement issued on 13 October 2026. The EFF, IFP, MK, and UAT indicated they intend to respond. No responses had yet been received from Al Jama-ah, GOOD, NCC, PA, PAC, or Rise Mzansi as of 26 October 2026. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
What the parties said about legislation
Six of the seven responding parties answered the legislation question directly. The ACDP, ActionSA, ATM, DA, FF Plus and UDM each answered “no” when asked whether they support any outcome of the Section 22 process that is given legal force through legislation. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Key qualifications included:
- DA would oppose legislation establishing compulsory religious oversight councils or compulsory participation in a regulatory framework.
- ATM noted that laws of general application remain appropriate for criminal offences, fraud, abuse and violations of constitutional rights.
- ActionSA said the priority should be enforcement of existing laws.
- BOSA said fraud and abuse should be addressed through existing laws and cautioned against restrictions on preaching or practising faith.
- ANC said churches should be free to govern and regulate their own affairs, though it did not explicitly address legislation. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
State regulation or self-regulation: where the line falls
FOR SA asked whether a council led by religious leaders but established, empowered or funded by statute should be regarded as State regulation or self-regulation.
- ACDP, ATM, FF Plus and UDM said it would constitute State regulation.
- DA said a statutory religious council is not self-regulation.
- ActionSA said genuine self-regulation must be voluntary.
- BOSA expressed concern about State regulation of religious expression.
- ANC referred to self-regulation and constitutional freedoms but did not specifically answer the statutory-council question. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Where the answers differ
Regarding restarting the process:
- FF Plus: No.
- ACDP: Possibly, after proper reconstitution and representation.
- ATM: Yes, but with fundamental changes.
- UDM: Yes, on a genuinely voluntary basis.
- DA: Any initiative must originate from religious communities themselves. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
Regarding existing laws:
- ACDP, ActionSA, ATM, FF Plus and UDM said current laws are sufficient if properly enforced.
- DA said existing laws should be the starting point, with any genuine gaps addressed through carefully tailored and constitutionally justified measures rather than licensing or control systems. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
FOR SA’s view: why the detail matters
FOR SA argues that broad statements about regulation are insufficient and that voters should consider:
- Whether parties support legislation giving legal force to codes of conduct, registration systems or sanctions regimes.
- Whether they regard a statutory council as self-regulation or State regulation.
- Whether they would support legislation later if voluntary structures are established first. [FOR SA Op-…f religion | PDF]
What happens next
Positions may change, and FOR SA will continue updating the comparison as new responses arrive. Parties may submit updated positions or corrections.
Contact: Zoé Langa at zoe.langa@forsa.org.za
Latest version: https://www.forsa.org.za/articles/on-the-record-where-the-political-parties-stand-on-state-regulation-of-religion
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: 28/10/2026
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.
