FOR SA Statement on Xulu Resignation, CRL Section 22 Committee

FOR SA Statement on Xulu Resignation, CRL Section 22 Committee

Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) notes today’s press conference on The State of the Church in South Africa, delivered by Reverend Professor Musa Xulu, which was convened to provide an update on the CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 Committee process and the broader CRL and state regulation of religion controversy.

Professor Xulu has now publicly resigned as Chairperson of the Section 22 Committee, stating that he has done so in the interests of transparency, constitutional accountability, and personal integrity, and to explain the circumstances that led to his decision. He further alleges that the Committee has been used to disguise a predetermined agenda of State control of religion, driven at least in part by hostility towards particular Christian traditions.

FOR SA takes these claims extremely seriously, particularly in light of the CRL Chair’s repeated public assurances that neither she nor her office played any role beyond that of a neutral secretariat. Professor Xulu’s detailed statement reveals that this was not the case.According to his account, CRL Chair Mrs Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva exercised decisive control over the Section 22 process and sought to use the Committee as a front to advance legislation establishing State-appointed, State-funded, and State-controlled umbrella bodies, which is clearly State regulation of religion.

Regardless of how the CRL Chair frames this agenda as “self-regulation” or how often she publicly affirms that freedom of religion is sacrosanct, actions matter more than rhetoric. In Professor Xulu’s account, these actions fundamentally contradict the constitutional role of a Chapter 9 institution, which must model independence, restraint, integrity, and constitutional values, especially when engaging a core democratic right such as freedom of religion.

Professor Xulu’s statement sets out a disturbing pattern, which, if even partly true, demonstrates a process that is fundamentally compromised. These include serious questions about whether the Section 22 Committee was lawfully and properly constituted; irregular and unexplained changes in membership; repeated interference by the CRL Chair in the calling, chairing, and direction of meetings; and the marginalisation of dissenting views. Most concerningly, they reveal a predetermined outcome — state regulation of religion — combined with an unwillingness to engage with alternative, lawful solutions or with dissenting voices.

He further describes an environment that became toxic, exclusionary, and intimidating, including allegations that consultations would be restricted to invited participants and that law-enforcement measures (including the SAPS and even tear gas) were contemplated to suppress dissenting voices. Such conduct, if established, is wholly incompatible with good faith public consultation in a constitutional democracy.

There is a deep irony in these revelations. The CRL Chair has been highly vocal in questioning the integrity of faith leaders and lamenting the abuse of power by those in positions of authority — and yet, according to Professor Xulu, the Section 22 process itself has been marked by a profound lack of integrity and apparent serious abuse of power. This raises an unavoidable question: How can any faith community engage in good faith with a process whose credibility and independence have been so seriously undermined and discredited?

Professor Xulu also disputes repeated public claims that the Section 22 Committee represents “45 million Christians”, pointing instead to a serious representational deficit and the exclusion of major constituencies. Whatever one’s theological or ecclesial position, the principle is straightforward: no Committee can credibly claim to speak for tens of millions while excluding large sectors and treating disagreement as disruption. This is fundamentally at odds with the CRL Rights Commission’s primary constitutional mandate, which is to encourage unity and harmony within the faith communities of South Africa.

Most gravely, Professor Xulu alleges that racist and defamatory remarks were made about FOR SA and its Executive Director, Michael Swain. He further alleges that the CRL Chair told him she had laid criminal charges against Swain for crimen injuria, that pressure was being exerted on SAPS through the NPA and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Shamila Batohi, to ensure his arrest before Christmas, and that she expressed a desire forSwain to be imprisoned and to face a five-year sentence.

Let us be clear: FOR SA rejects racial scapegoating and the use (real or threatened) of State machinery to silence legitimate criticism and lawful public comment. Robust scrutiny of a Chapter 9 institution is not a crime; it is essential to constitutional accountability and democratic health. Allegations that a constitutional office-bearer may have pursued personal vendettas, weaponised criminal processes, or encouraged intimidation of dissent raise grave questions about abuse of power and fitness for office, and demand urgent, independent scrutiny. Accordingly, FOR SA calls for the following minimum steps to restore constitutional integrity:

1. An urgent, independent inquiry into the establishment, mandate, membership, governance, and operation of the Section 22 Committee, including the role played by the CRL Chair.
2. Immediate suspension of the current Section 22 process pending the outcome of that inquiry.
3. Full transparency, including publication of any resolutions establishing theCommittee; its evolving terms of reference; membership and appointment processes; minutes and attendance records; and the approval status of documents released in the Committee’s name.
4. Recusal of any implicated office-bearers from further involvement, pending investigation, to protect the integrity of the process and the credibility of the CRLRights Commission.

FOR SA remains committed to defending every South African’s constitutional right to freedom of religion, belief, and opinion, both for those within religious communities and for those harmed by criminal wrongdoing within them. We will engage constructively with any lawful, evidence-based approach that targets criminality. What we continue to reject is the imposition of State control of religion, which is unconstitutional, unnecessary (given SouthAfrica’s comprehensive criminal and civil law framework), and unworkable in practice.

FOR SA, together with other faith and civil-society partners, has already proposed detailed, immediately implementable alternatives that address abuse without new legislation and without compromising constitutional rights and freedoms. We urge the CRL to engage these solutions in good faith, rather than persisting with their current agenda of State control of religion.

For media enquiries, contact: Zoé Langa – Legal Advisor & Research Assistant, FOR SA zoe.langa@forsa.org.za | +27 (81) 365 5340 | www.forsa.org.za