False allegations against FOR SA and Michael Swain

FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST FOR SA AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MICHAEL SWAIN

Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) strongly denies the false and defamatory allegations made by the Chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission, Mrs Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva (the Chair), during a press conference convened by the CRL Rights Commission on 19 June 2025.

At the press briefing, the Chair alleged that FOR SA and its Executive Director, Michael Swain, accused her, Ms Cheryl Zondi, and/or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation of receiving R1,5 million from the National Lotteries Commission. This donation was reported widely in the press, including in Timeslive. We note that, according to a press release from the National Lotteries Commission of 13 December 2018, the Cheryl Zondi Foundation partnered with the Izimvo 447 NPC and received R1,5 million to aid their work for those exploited in sacred spaces. Neither Michael Swain, nor FOR SA, has ever alleged financial misconduct of any kind. Such claims are false and wholly without any factual basis at all.  

On the contrary, FOR SA holds the work of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation in high regard. We express empathy and support for Ms Zondi and her efforts to support survivors of sexual abuse. This consistent position is reflected in our public response to the outcome of the Timothy Omotoso case. If any such impression has been given rise to — among the public or those named — it is inaccurate and the result of one or more misrepresentations.

Further, in all its communication, FOR SA has unequivocally condemned all forms of abuse—sexual or otherwise. Victims must be supported, and perpetrators held fully accountable.
‍

Conflict of interest

The “conflict of interest” referenced a 2019 letter sent by over 20 senior religious leaders representing around 12 million South Africans and addressed to President Ramaphosa. The letter raised several concerns, including the fact that the Chair simultaneously served as CRL Chairperson and Deputy Chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation.

The CRL Rights Commission is a Chapter 9 institution, created to be independent and impartial, accountable only to Parliament. Thus, its Chair must avoid bias, preferential treatment, and dual loyalties. (See section 15 of the CRL Rights Commission Act, 2002.) Arguably, this includes keeping clear boundaries when interacting with organisations, especially advocacy organisations, linked to matters before the Commission.

Under Mrs Mkhwanazi-Xaluva’s leadership at the time, the CRL strongly pushed for state regulation of religion. A wide diversity of faith communities strongly opposed the CRL’s proposal. The “conflict of interest” concern arose because the CRL Chair cited the Omotoso case as a high-profile example to justify the CRL's proposed regulation model (via peer review councils, licensing of religious leaders, etc.).

Her appointment as the Deputy Chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation, therefore, created a strong impression of an overlap of interest and influence. On the one hand, the Chair of the CRL is tasked with impartial interaction with faith communities, constitutional compliance, and safeguarding diverse religious rights. Acting as Deputy Chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation is an advocacy-aligned — i.e. not neutral — position. This raises legitimate concerns about a conflict of interest on the part of the Chair. It must be stressed that this in no way raises any concern or casts any suspicion on Cheryl Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation.
‍

The current context

Since being re-appointed, the Chair has continued promoting proposals for state regulation of religion, including the introduction of peer review mechanisms. FOR SA has consistently opposed this course of action, repeatedly warning that:

• State regulation of religion is unnecessary, unconstitutional, unworkable, and unaffordable.
• It poses a serious threat to the right to religious freedom.
• Parliament rejected the CRL’s prior proposals for such regulation in 2018.
• Religious leaders from across faith traditions have firmly and consistently opposed this proposal and direction.

We agree that action must be taken to combat abuse. However, state regulation of religion is not the solution. We have instead proposed alternative approaches that ensure justice is done without compromising South Africa’s fundamental rights and freedoms.

In FOR SA’s public education efforts to point out the dangers to religious freedom of State regulation of religion, we gave the historical background to the current context. One part of this extensive presentation referenced the 2019 letter to the President in good faith and with full transparency.

However, it is essential to clarify that:

• The letter did not accuse Mrs Mkhwanazi-Xaluva of theft or corruption of any kind.
• It did not contain any accusations against Ms Cheryl Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation at all.
• FOR SA has never made any accusations as alleged.
  ‍

A disappointing and unjustified attack

FOR SA is disappointed that Mrs Mkhwanazi-Xaluva did not first seek clarity or engage with us before making public accusations and threatening legal action. Her subsequent laying of criminal charges against Michael Swain and FOR SA is seen as vexatious and unfounded. It appears to be a personally motivated attack designed to intimidate and deter FOR SA (or others) from opposing the Chair’s agenda to push again for State regulation of religion.

We reiterate that FOR SA is not against any person or institution, including Mrs Mkhwanazi-Xaluva or the CRL Rights Commission. On the contrary, FOR SA supports all of its legitimate and constitutional objectives. However, our singular focus is the protection and advancement of religious freedom and related constitutional rights in South Africa. We are committed to doing so within the ambit of the law.
‍

Next steps

FOR SA reserves all legal rights in its response to this matter and is currently considering appropriate legal remedies in response to these false and harmful allegations. These include a formal demand for retraction as well as amending its extant damages claim for defamation.

We call on all media outlets and members of the public to verify facts thoroughly before publishing or sharing potentially misleading information.