PRESS STATEMENT: CRL Advances Section 22 Process Despite Ongoing Legal Challenges

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

13 February 2026

PRESS STATEMENT: CRL Advances Section 22 Process Despite Ongoing Legal Challenges

At a press conference on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, the CRL Rights Commission announced the next phase of its Section 22 process, including 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. While the CRL describes this as a consultative and voluntary self-regulatory process, the announced timeline and structure indicate that it is continuing with a legally contested process that remains constitutionally questionable and substantively unchanged.

The core issues remain unresolved. The lawfulness of the Section 22 Committee is under challenge before the High Court. Its representation, inclusivity, and procedural integrity are strongly disputed. Despite assurances to the contrary, the CRL’s own documentation shows that there has been no deviation from the stated objective of developing a legislative framework that, irrespective of intent, would fundamentally affect the right to religious freedom.

As FOR SA Executive Director Michael Swain explains, “Nothing has changed in principle. The only change is that the process keeps advancing, even accelerating, 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. This requires clarification. Whether a process may continue pending litigation is not the same question as whether the process is lawful. That question is currently before the courts in litigation brought by the South African Church Defenders and the Muslim Lawyers Association. “The issue, ultimately, is not whether the CRL can proceed. The issue is whether what it is doing is lawful. If it is not, the process and anything flowing from it are liable to be set aside. The CRL should press pause while the courts consider this matter,” says Swain.

The CRL has nevertheless made it clear that it intends to proceed unless directed otherwise by the courts. The CRL Chair stated that the “train keeps moving” and that the process will not stop unless the Constitutional Court rules 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, we conclude that they clearly intend to complete this before the courts have ruled,” Swain notes. There is a real risk that a substantial part, or even the entirety, of the process will be concluded before its lawfulness is determined, 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 pre-determined 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.

As Swain states, “Meaningful consultation requires that outcomes remain genuinely open. In this case, the mandate already prescribes a legislative framework, so it is clear that this process is neither neutral nor exploratory.”

The CRL continues to describe the proposal as voluntary self-regulation. However, the elements contemplated, including registration, a “Seal of Good Standing”, oversight structures, and compliance mechanisms, are characteristic of regulatory systems. Once linked to legislation, these will effectively amount to state regulation of religious institutions and practitioners, regardless of how they are described.

FOR SA reiterates that South Africa already has a comprehensive legal framework addressing abuse, fraud, exploitation, and harm to vulnerable persons. These laws apply equally across all sectors. Religious freedom has never been a defence for criminal conduct. The challenge lies in enforcement, not in the absence of regulation. “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,” says Swain.

Significant and genuinely self-regulatory progress has already been made within the religious sector itself. Following extensive consultation after the 2017 to 2018 parliamentary engagements, a Code of Conduct for religious practitioners was developed by and for faith communities. Grounded in the Religious Freedom Charter, this reflects a voluntary, sector-led approach to accountability. SACOFF, established in 2021, now represents over 24,000 churches and more than 10 million Christians.

However, these developments have not been meaningfully recognised in the CRL’s current process. SACOFF was excluded from the launch of the Section 22 Committee. Instead, the CRL appears to be advancing a separate framework developed without comparable consultation. As Swain notes, “The faith sector has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to address accountability through voluntary, community-driven mechanisms. The CRL’s current proposal will effectively replace this with a top-down, state-empowered framework of regulation.”

The independence of the Section 22 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. This structure cannot reasonably be regarded as institutionally independent. Claims of broad representation are similarly disputed. Assertions 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 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 persons through existing legal mechanisms, and engaging constructively with stakeholders to strengthen good governance and accountability in the sector. These objectives are not in conflict and must be pursued within the framework of the rule of law.

FOR SA will continue to monitor the Section 22 process closely, engage 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.

“South Africa 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. If those limits are crossed, we will oppose it firmly, lawfully, and without compromise,” concludes Swain.

ENDS

‍