High Court Asked to Strike Down CRL’s Section 22 Committee: Evidence of Bias, Overreach and Abuse of Power Revealed

High Court Asked to Strike Down CRL’s Section 22 Committee: Evidence of Bias, Overreachand Abuse of Power Revealed

A major constitutional dispute is now before the Gauteng High Court following the submission of a detailed 400-page application by the South African Church Defenders (SACD). At the heart of the case is the CRL’s highly controversial Section 22 Committee, which the founding papers allege was established without the legally required approval of the Commission and is therefore acting outside the proper decision-making structures of the CRL.

A Committee established without proper authority

The SACD’s founding affidavit uncovers a pattern of widespread legal breaches and procedural irregularities within the CRL. It details a process marked by unilateral executive acts that lack transparency or constitutional validity and deliberately exclude key stakeholders. The evidence suggests a Commission that disregards Parliament’s authority, dangerously straying from its constitutional mandate and attempting to impose state regulation over the Christian sector.There are also indications that Charismatic and Pentecostal churches and communities are being specifically targeted.

“Having carefully examined the papers, it is clear that this case strikes at the very heart of SouthAfrica’s constitutional democracy,” says Michael Swain, Executive Director of FOR SA. “This is not merely a procedural flaw or administrative oversight. The evidence strongly indicates that the CRL acted beyond its authority and misrepresented Parliament’s 2018 findings, publicly claiming approval for a regulatory agenda over the entire religious sector of South Africa thatParliament had in fact rejected."

The SACD’s application reveals a strong suspicion that the CRL’s Section 22 Committee was created unilaterally by the CRL Chair, without any formal resolution authorised by theCommission itself. Several Commissioners reportedly did not know that the Committee had been established, and the lack of an authorising resolution suggests that it was not properly considered, approved, or supported through the Commission’s formal governance procedures.If this is accurate, then the Committee is unlawful from the beginning, and all its actions, including consultations and proposed regulatory frameworks, as well as any future activities or recommendations, will be legally invalid. What emerges is not a structure founded on proper institutional governance, but one imposed by an individual exceeding her mandate.

A “consultation process” that was predetermined from the start

Although the CRL publicly described the Section 22 Committee as a neutral platform to“consult” with the Christian community, the SACD founding papers reveal that a detailed regulatory framework and draft White Paper already existed before any consultations took place. This indicates that the process was not about identifying needs, listening to concerns, or finding solutions together, but about seeking support and endorsement for proposals that have already been formulated and an outcome that has already been determined.

The SACD papers show that, long before consultations were due to start, the CRL and theSection 22 Committee were already exploring extensive regulatory models. These include versions of peer-review bodies for religious organisations, mechanisms similar to licensing or accreditation for pastors, State-defined standards for ministry training, and compliance systems capable of enforcing sanctions. The leak of a draft White Paper and regulatory framework from the Section 22 Committee indicates that the fundamental direction has already been decided. What was publicly presented as an open consultation seems to be a process structured around frameworks that were largely developed beforehand.

One of the gravest concerns raised in the SACD papers is the gap between what the CRL has publicly claimed about Parliament’s 2018 findings and what the official record actually shows.The affidavit notes that Parliament did not endorse the CRL’s preceding regulatory proposals, yet the Commission has repeatedly spoken as if it had. Instead of acknowledging Parliament’s position, the CRL Chair has continued to promote elements of the previously rejected approach through the Section 22 Committee. This raises troubling questions about the Commission’s respect for Parliament’s authority and about the integrity of its leadership in faithfully conveying the outcomes of a parliamentary process.

A discriminatory and targeted process

The SACD court papers reveal a targeted and almost exclusive focus by the CRL on the Christian sector, especially churches within the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Meanwhile,Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and African Traditional communities were entirely excluded. Yet, looking at the draft White Paper’s proposals, they would undoubtedly be equally affected.This pattern of discrimination was already apparent at the launch of the Section 22 Committee at Rhema Bible Church on 2 October 2025, where several major Christian organisations — including longstanding critics of State regulation — were notably absent from the invitation list. Leaders representing millions of Christians who applied for an invitation were declined, confirming the impression that key dissenting voices were not meant to be included. Whether by intention or oversight, the result was the same: those most likely to challenge the CRL’s approach were sidelined.

In a further deeply troubling development, the 2024–2028 National Security Strategy, relying expressly on the CRL’s 2017 “confirmation” about the mushrooming of charismatic churches, places them in the State’s “High Level Threat Assessment” and lists “mushrooming of charismatic churches” among the challenges to be prioritised in addressing “immediate threats” to national security. The same report defines “charismatic churches” simply as a form of Christianity that emphasises the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts and modern-day miracles, effectively targeting a major sector of the Christian faith community. (FOR SA has written to theCRL to seek clarity on this, including confirmation of steps to be taken if the inclusion of charismatic churches was due to an error.)

The SACD papers also raise serious concerns about Professor Musa Xulu’s suitability to lead any process of this magnitude. The founding affidavit highlights past findings of financial misconduct, questions over the authenticity of some of his academic qualifications, and even a public repudiation by King Misuzulu. Yet this is the individual appointed to chair a committee whose Terms of Reference require it to conduct extensive research into the abuse of people’s beliefs, assess the impact of harmful religious practices, develop strategies to “curb spiritual transgressions”, and propose accountability mechanisms for religious leadership. Entrusting such broad and sensitive responsibilities to someone with this background inevitably raises profound questions about judgment, suitability, and the integrity of the process itself.

This case is about the future of religious freedom

The relief sought by SACD is extensive. They request the High Court to annul the Committee entirely, declare all its actions unlawful, affirm that the Commission acted beyond its authority, and impose personal cost orders on the CRL Chair and Prof Xulu for acting in bad faith.

FOR SA supports seeking appropriate legal recourse, including seeking judicial oversight, to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability for any unlawful action. These remedies being sought are not merely procedural corrections; they are vital to restoring the constitutional balance that safeguards the Church and every other faith community from State control. They are also essential to reinstate confidence in the CRL itself, which was established by theConstitution to protect religious freedom but is now viewed by many as its worst adversary.

“In South Africa, the State does not license churches, approve doctrine, or police religious belief. This is a foundational constitutional principle,” Swain says. “The outcome of this case will shape the future of religious freedom for decades. FOR SA stands with SACD and with everyfaith community that values their constitutional rights. We remain committed to defending freedom of religion for all South Africans.”