PRESS STATEMENT: Faith Communities Speak with One Voice: No Mandate for State Regulation of Religion

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

13 February 2026
‍

Wednesday, 11 February 2026, marked a significant moment in the ongoing dispute between the CRL Rights Commission and South Africa’s faith communities.

After sustained requests from diverse religious bodies and civil society organisations, the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (PC COGTA) convened a meeting to hear concerns regarding the CRL Chair’s continued push toward State regulation of religion through the Section 22 Committee process.

This was the first formal opportunity for faith communities to address Parliament directly on the matter. The message delivered to the PC COGTA was clear and unequivocal: there is no support among faith communities for legislation to regulate religion.

Broad-Based Faith Opposition

Although the CRL’s attention has mainly focused on Christianity, submissions were made by a wide spectrum of religious leadership, including Muslim and African traditional spirituality representatives. These leaders expressed serious concern at being unfairly discriminated against by being excluded from the Section 22 Committee process. They warned that any legislative outcome would affect all faith traditions equally.

Stakeholders raised objections relating to inclusivity, religious representation, the purpose and constitutional basis of the Section 22 Committee, and the risk of eventual state regulation of religious institutions.

While unequivocally condemning abusive or criminal conduct within religious settings, faith leaders emphasised that such conduct must be addressed through existing criminal and civil laws, not through new regulatory legislation targeted at religion.

FOR SA: A Constitutional Issue

FOR SA’s presentation framed the matter squarely as a constitutional question.

“This is fundamentally a constitutional issue,” said Michael Swain, Executive Director of FOR SA. “Abuse and exploitation are crimes. They must be prosecuted effectively and without hesitation by the State. Creating additional legislation to regulate religion is neither necessary nor constitutionally permissible, particularly where viable alternative solutions already exist and have been proposed.” Swain affirmed that South Africa’s legal framework is extensive and robust, and that any erosion of the right to freedom of religion through unnecessary legislative intervention would be unacceptable. “There are practical, workable alternatives already in place,” he added. “The Constitution requires that the least restrictive means be used. That threshold has simply not been met.”

‍Academic Evidence Challenges CRL Claims

Senior international scholars and legal experts contributed to the discussion. Professor Christof Sauer of the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) presented research refuting the CRL Chair’s claim that Section 22 Committee members represent 40 to 45 million Christians. He further presented data disputing the assertion that abuse and criminality within the faith sector are systemic or widespread.

Nonetheless, there was unanimous agreement among all presenters that any criminal misconduct within religious institutions must be addressed decisively through South Africa’s existing legal mechanisms.

Calls for Accountability

Several submissions called for scrutiny of the conduct of the CRL Chair, Mrs Thoko Mkwanazi-Xaluva. Faith leaders expressed concern over what they described as disparaging remarks directed at Christian communities and the exclusion of major religious bodies from meaningful participation in the Section 22 process.

These concerns were reinforced by an affidavit from former Section 22 Committee Chair, Professor Reverend Musa Xulu, who stated that the Committee “is being used as a front to disguise a predetermined agenda of State control of religion, driven in part by personal hostility toward particular Christian faith and traditions.”

Concerns were also raised about divisions within faith structures. The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa (TEASA), which has supported the CRL Commission’s agenda, has faced significant internal repudiation from member bodies. The Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) has already withdrawn its membership, and other major denominations have indicated that they may follow.

PC COGTA Response

Following the engagement, the PC COGTA issued a media statement reaffirming two core principles: that freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed and must be protected, and that congregants must be safeguarded from abuse.

Committee Chairperson Dr Zweli Mkhize confirmed that the Committee is actively engaging the matter, including obtaining a legal opinion and consulting further stakeholders in response to an instruction from the Speaker of the National Assembly to give the issue serious attention.

The PC COGTA indicated that it will assess whether common ground can be found within a constitutional framework, continue consultations with religious bodies, the CRL Commission and the Minister of COGTA, and examine questions relating to the constitutionality of the Section 22 mandate, the adequacy of existing laws, and concerns regarding the Commission’s leadership.

The Committee will conduct further research and engagements before reporting back to the Speaker.

Cautious Optimism

FOR SA is cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the engagement.

“Today demonstrated that faith communities across traditions are united in defending constitutional freedoms while unequivocally condemning abuse,” said Swain. “We are encouraged that Parliament has taken these concerns seriously. However, we will remain vigilant. The constitutional protection of faith and freedom must not be eroded through unnecessary and constitutionally unjustifiable legislation.”

FOR SA extends its appreciation to the many leaders, scholars and community representatives who participated and continue to stand in defence of constitutional rights.

ENDS