Is Rwanda the CRL Model for State Religion in South Africa?

Is Rwanda the CRL’s Model for State Regulation in South Africa?

In recent public comments, the Chairperson of South Africa’s CRL Rights Commission (CRL), Mrs Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, revealed that the Commission is looking to other African countries that have already implemented systems of State regulation of religion as potential models for South Africa.  This statement has raised serious concerns, considering the impact of regulation in some countries. Take, for example, Rwanda, where State involvement in religious life has become deeply repressive.

The recent tragedy in Kenya, where over 400 people in a religious cult starved themselves to death, has again highlighted this issue and given a renewed impetus towards state control of religion.  This is clearly a particularly appalling example of criminal abuses that take place from time to time in the religious sector. The CRL similarly points to criminal acts in South Africa to justify its push for state regulation of religion. However, it is important to remember that every “abuse” identified is a criminal act and already covered by existing law. There is no such thing as a “spiritual crime”. A crime is crime, whether it is committed by a pastor, a politician or a policeman.  Also, there is no defence to any crime by pleading the right to religious freedom. It can and must be dealt with by properly enforcing existing laws through the justice system. The failure by the State to properly enforce existing laws should not be exploited as an opportunity for State overreach.

The Rwandan example: A blueprint for control

Rwanda has led the way for several African governments to justify tightening control over religious organisations. Since 2018, the Rwandan government has made a concerted effort to bring religious institutions under State control, culminating in the 2024 inspection of 13,000 organisations, of which over 7,700 were shut down. (Some sources indicate 14,000 organisations were inspected, of which about 9,800 were shut down.)

Authorities justify closures using four main criteria:

• Safety compliance: Although safety is a legitimate concern, in practice, it is often selectively enforced to target disfavoured or minority faith groups.
  

• Academic qualifications for religious leaders: All senior religious leaders are now required to hold a degree in religious studies, or a related qualification, from an accredited institution. (This requirement would disqualify the vast majority of pastors, imams, lay leaders and evangelists in South Africa – and indeed globally.)
  

• Government approval of by-laws and “action plans”: Churches and religious bodies must submit their internal by-laws, obtain a “collaboration letter” from local district authorities, and present a detailed action plan. This gives State officials broad discretion to approve or deny a religious organisation’s right to exist.
  

• Doctrinal oversight: Religious organisations must submit a statement of faith for government evaluation. Authorities then assess whether the group’s teachings align with so-called “national values.” Only those beliefs deemed acceptable by the State are allowed.

In March 2025, Rwanda further escalated its regulatory regime by requiring:

• Annual reports disclosing all sources of funding.
• A yearly “service fee” of 2 million Rwandan francs (about US$1,400).
• A ban on political speech.
• Immediate dissolution of non-compliant religious organisations via administrative order.

A violation of international norms

Like South Africa, Rwanda is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and bound by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which guarantees freedom of religion. Rwanda’s use of “national values” and “cultural norms” clearly violates these principles.  In light of this, any suggestion by the CRL that Rwanda could serve as a model for South Africa is deeply troubling. Rwanda has replaced true religious freedom with State-managed conformity.

Rwanda’s example is a cautionary tale, not a roadmap. South Africans must reject any attempts to import such models under the guise of peer review mechanisms, public safety or national values. Religious freedom is not a privilege granted by the State. It is a constitutional right that must be defended – without compromise – for us and for future generations.