OP-ED: Oversight Is Welcome – Parliament Has Not Endorsed the Section 22 Process

Oversight Is Welcome – Parliament Has Not Endorsed the Section 22 Process

What Parliament did and did not do

On 4 August, Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA PC) intervened in the dispute over the CRL Rights Commission's Section 22 Committee (the Section 22 Committee), the body the CRL has tasked with developing a code of ethical conduct for the religious sector. The COGTA PC gave the CRL Commission and its Committee one week to produce a concrete plan for reform and inclusivity, and it made a vital point that should be highlighted: the religious sector, not the CRL Commission, must lead the development of the substance of any code of conduct.

This is a welcome exercise of oversight. The COGTA PC did not give the Section 22 Committee a clean bill of health. If anything, the meeting exposed why the process cannot simply continue in its present form. It is worth being clear about what Parliament did and did not do. It allowed the development of a code of conduct to continue in principle, but at the same time, it withheld approval of the present structure and required that it be reviewed, reformed and made inclusive. Any suggestion that Parliament endorsed the existing Committee, its consultations, composition or its current Terms of Reference would therefore be inaccurate.

The governing documents tell a different story

A major problem and source of contention is the gap between how the Section 22 Committee described its process and what its own governing documents say. In its presentation, it claims that the proposed framework is voluntary, independent, church-led and unrelated to State regulation. Yet its Terms of Reference, signed by the CRL Chair, instruct the Committee to consult on a legislative framework. This provides for a Religious Practice Council, the registration of religious institutions and practitioners, a universal code of conduct, and to engage State departments to help bring that framework about. The December 2025 draft framework follows the same path and refers to consultations on a legislative framework for a Christian Professional Council or Ethical Authority. It contemplates registration, a public register, a "Seal of Good Standing", sanctions, deregistration and public notification.

These are not incidental words. They point to the true character of what the CRL is proposing. The Section 22 Committee was established by the CRL Commission and remains subject to its direction under the CRL Act. The Commission is responsible for the work of the Committee. Although the Committee may exercise day-to-day judgment, it cannot be presented as independent of the body that created it and to whom it remains answerable.

Calling a system voluntary does not make it voluntary when the Terms of Reference envisage that it will later be supported and enforced by legislation, or if declining to join could affect a church's legal standing, its access to public institutions or its funding. If the CRL Commission and the Section 22 Committee have genuinely abandoned the State regulatory direction set out in their own documents, the remedy is straightforward. They should say so unambiguously, formally amend the Terms of Reference, publish a revised draft, and rule out any legislation whose purpose or effect would be to impose or enforce a religious code or a State-backed system of regulation.

Reform cannot validate the past

The second difficulty is the composition and representativeness of the Section 22 Committee. The original list of members named 19 people. However, during the meeting, the CRL Chair said the Committee now comprises 24, including alternates. Yet neither the Commission's website nor the Section 22 website publishes a complete, current register showing who remains, who resigned, who was replaced, when appointments were made, or which organisations still mandate the people said to speak for them. A name on a list does not prove that a person is doing the work or still represents the constituency whose numbers are being claimed and which independent academic research has shown is clearly overstated. Equally, adding new members cannot repair or validate a disputed structure, a pre-developed framework or consultations that have already been conducted. A properly reconstituted body would need to reconsider its mandate and reopen any engagement that has been materially compromised.

Participation is not endorsement

The third difficulty concerns the Section 22 Committee’s attempt to use numbers or participants at its hearings to indicate support for its agenda. Attendance is clearly not endorsement.  However, its presentation leaned heavily on participation figures but failed to publish the underlying positions that were submitted, nor show how the criticism it received has changed the draft. That matters, because major Christian structures, including SACOFF, the IFCC, the AFM and the Southern Africa Catholic Bishops Conference have already submitted strong objections. The Section 22 Committee’s presentation also totally ignored the submissions it has received from religious organisations and concerned individuals via the DearSouthAfrica virtual public participation platform. As of 6 August 2026, its dashboard displayed 17,762 responses opposing the draft, against a few hundred in support. The raw dataset still needs to be verified before any precise total is asserted, but a contrary response of that scale clearly contradicts and calls into question any claims of general support and legitimacy.

Accountability does not require State control

Beneath these difficulties lies the real question of how religious leaders should be held accountable. FOR SA's position has always been that all religious ministry is subject to the rule of law and that religious freedom has never been a defence to justify unlawful conduct. No constitutional right protects abuse, fraud, exploitation or the harming of children, and those wrongs must be confronted without hesitation. South Africa already has criminal, child protection, immigration, tax, labour, company and civil law, and all of it applies in religious settings. Where credible evidence shows a genuine gap, Parliament can consider a carefully tailored amendment to a law of general application. Government can also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its law enforcement mechanisms. However, what it emphatically should not do is convert religious ministry into a State-regulated profession or make the exercise of a constitutional freedom depend on registration, accreditation or a “Seal of Good Standing”.

The Constitution requires less restrictive means

This is where the Constitutional test set out in Section 36 does real work. This asks whether a limitation on any right is necessary, and whether less restrictive means are available. Here, less restrictive means to the proposed system of State regulation of religion clearly exist. A Code of Conduct has already been developed by and for the religious sector in compliance with the recommendation in the 2019 COGTA PC report. It was submitted to government in 2020 and again at the COGTA PC hearings in 2026.  Before building a new State-linked structure, Parliament should ask why that existing instrument was never properly considered or evaluated.  Furthermore, voluntary networks already provide community-based accountability across thousands of congregations without handing spiritual authority to the State.

An opportunity, not a conclusion

Accountability and control are not the same thing, and a constitutional democracy must insist on the difference. The COGTA PC meeting on 4 August created an opportunity, not a conclusion. Parliament should now require full disclosure of the Section 22 Committee’s membership, its mandate and its consultation record; it should hear the views of the wider religious sector; and it should draw a clear line between genuine voluntary accountability and State regulation of belief. The Section 22 Committee’s Terms of Reference and draft framework should be formally rewritten; compromised consultations should be reopened, and State regulation expressly ruled out. Unless and until that happens, the Section 22 process cannot credibly be treated as representative and must not become the foundation for any law affecting religious freedom. Parliament’s oversight is welcome, and this meeting made clear that its endorsement had neither been earned nor given.