OP-ED: The CRL should not mistake a warning light for a victory lap
The CRL should not mistake a warning light for a victory lap
The CRL Rights Commission’s latest media statement reads as though the recent COGTA Portfolio Committee (COGTA PC) engagement settled the matter.
It did not.
If anything, the meeting confirmed that the CRL’s Section 22 process remains deeply contested, constitutionally sensitive, and in need of far greater transparency, representivity and discipline.
Parliament’s own statement was careful and measured. It recognised that religious freedom and accountability are not mutually exclusive. It also acknowledged that concerns remain about the constitutionality and inclusivity of the CRL’s Section 22 process, and that further engagement is needed between those who support and those who oppose it.
That is not a blank cheque for the CRL. It is a warning light.
A “supporters’ meeting” that exposed continued concern
One of the most striking features of the meeting is that it was reportedly convened for those who were broadly supportive of the CRL’s Section 22 process, or who had not yet had an opportunity to present to the COGTA Portfolio Committee.
Yet even in that setting, support was far from overwhelming. An analysis of the proceedings records that, out of 50 speakers, only 21 were interpreted as supporting the CRL proposals with no or little reservation. Fifteen were clearly opposed. A further 14 were either ambivalent, raised concerns, or supported the process only with reservations.
Even that number requires careful reading. Several of those counted as supportive were not necessarily representative voices from within the religious sector itself, but organisations primarily concerned with gender-based violence and femicide in religious or community settings. Their concerns are serious and must be heard. But support for stronger action against GBVF should not automatically be treated as support for the CRL’s wider proposal to create a state-backed system of registration, recognition and sanctions for religious leaders and religious organisations.
In other words, even in a meeting framed around supposedly supportive voices, more than half of the speakers were either opposed, concerned, conditional or unconvinced. And a portion of those who supported the CRL’s direction appeared to do so because of a specific concern about abuse, not because they had engaged with, or endorsed, the full constitutional implications of the Section 22 regulatory agenda.
That is not consensus.
“The CRL should not mistake a managed platform for a mandate from the faith community,” says Michael Swain, Executive Director of Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA). “The proceedings did not show broad support for state-backed regulation of religion. They showed that the CRL’s proposals remain unresolved, contested and constitutionally problematic.”
Abuse must be addressed, but through the right process
FOR SA has consistently stated that abuse, exploitation, gender-based violence and criminal conduct in religious settings must be confronted clearly and decisively.
No constitutional right protects criminality. No religious leader is above the law. No faith community should ever become a hiding place for abuse. Victims and survivors must be heard. Perpetrators must be held accountable. Existing criminal, civil and protective laws must be enforced properly, without fear or favour.
But that is a different question from whether South Africa should create a state-backed system for registering religious practitioners and institutions and enforcing a state-approved religious code through a statutory or quasi-statutory structure.
Those two issues must not be blurred.
It is entirely understandable that organisations working against GBVF would call for stronger protection for vulnerable people in religious spaces. That concern is perfectly legitimate. But it does not follow that every religious organisation in the country should be placed under a licensing or registration framework, or that every religious leader should be brought under a state-enabled peer-review mechanism.
There are better, more targeted and constitutionally safer ways to address abuse. These include proper enforcement of criminal law, protection orders, child protection laws, safeguarding policies, mandatory reporting obligations where applicable, and voluntary ethical standards developed by faith communities themselves.
If Parliament wishes to consider the serious issue of gender-based violence in religious or other community settings, that deserves its own focused, survivor-sensitive and legally coherent process. It should not be used as a shortcut to justify a broader religious regulatory framework that may intrude on freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the internal governance of faith communities.
“The answer to abuse is not vague religious regulation,” says Swain. “The answer is the proper enforcement of existing law, targeted protection for vulnerable people, and ethical accountability developed by faith communities themselves.”
The Section 22 Committee is not independent of the CRL
A further concern is the repeated attempt to present the Section 22 Committee as though it were an independent body of religious leaders developing voluntary self-regulation for the Church. That position is simply unsustainable.
The Committee was established under section 22 of the CRL Rights Commission Act. Its members were chosen and appointed by the CRL and paid by the CRL for their services. The Committee’s Terms of Reference were developed by the CRL without any consultation with the leaders of the vast majority of the Christian faith community. The CRL provides all its logistical and administrative support, and it reports directly to the CRL, which can amend both its members and its mandate at will. All other financial arrangements fall under the CRL.
Importantly, its draft framework also does not simply propose voluntary ethical reflection by churches. It points toward a legislative framework, a religious sector practice council, registration of religious institutions, registration of religious leaders or practitioners, a sector-wide code, a “Seal of Good Standing”, and sanctions for non-compliance.
That is not self-regulation. Self-regulation is developed by the community concerned. It is voluntary, faith-sensitive and internally owned. It respects the constitutional boundary between the State and religious communities.
By contrast, a legislative framework backed by a public body, public funding, compulsory registration and sanctions is State regulation of religion, no matter what name the CRL tries to give it.
Representivity remains a serious problem
There is also the unresolved question of representivity.
Significant Christian bodies and denominations have raised strong concerns about the CRL’s process and proposals, including major Pentecostal, Charismatic and other formations such as the Apostolic Faith Mission, Assemblies of God and Full Gospel churches.
SACOFF, one of the largest representative voices within the Christian sector, with over 25,000 member churches, has also strongly opposed the direction of state-backed regulation.
This matters because no committee can credibly claim to speak for the Christian community while large and important parts of that community say that they were not properly represented, not properly heard, or do not support the outcome being pursued.
This concern is sharpened by the fact that some of the organisations previously claimed by the CRL Chair as supporters did not give unqualified support at the COGTA Portfolio Committee meeting. The South African Council of Churches (SACC) is one example. The CRL Chair has previously claimed its full support and referred to it as representing over 16 million Christians. Yet the SACC speaker raised no fewer than six concerns before his allotted time expired.
Another is the International Federation of Christian Churches (IFCC), founded by the late Pastor Ray McCauley. The IFCC raised strong objections to the Section 22 Committee’s process and was also highly critical of the CRL Chair’s consistent undermining of the work and good reputation of the Church in general.
The SACC concerns included the composition of the Section 22 structure, the marginalisation of certain church groups, church autonomy, vague terminology, racial inequality and bias, overreach, and the legislative trajectory of the process.
These are not minor administrative concerns. They go to the legitimacy of the process itself.
The real alternative already exists
There is, however, one constructive point in Parliament’s statement that should be welcomed. The COGTA Portfolio Committee recognised the importance of an ethical code being controlled, managed and developed by religious leaders, religious bodies and communities themselves.
That is the correct principle. But this work does not need to start from scratch. South Africa already has an important foundation in the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms, developed by the religious sector and adopted in 2010. In direct response to a key recommendation in the COGTA PC Report in 2018, a Code of Conduct for Religions in South Africa was developed in 2019 through the South African Council for the Protection and Promotion of Religious Rights and Freedoms, known as the SACRRF. The SACRRF had previously overseen the Charter and remains its custodian. The Charter sets out the rights of religious communities in a constitutional democracy. The Code sets out corresponding responsibilities, including commitments to human dignity, protection of children, respect for the law, financial integrity, accountability and reporting criminal conduct.
This is precisely what genuine self-regulation should look like. It is community-owned and developed by and for the faith communities. It is voluntary. It is capable of being contextualised within different theological, ecclesiastical and governance traditions. It promotes accountability without placing religious life under state control.
Accountability without state control
FOR SA supports accountability. We support lawful action against abuse. We support ethical leadership. We support the right of faith communities to develop clear standards of conduct and governance. What we do not support is the use of legitimate concerns about abuse as a basis for a state-backed system that risks controlling religious leadership, recognition, association and internal governance.
South Africa does not need a CRL-driven code. It does not need a statutory religious council. It does not need compulsory registration of religious practitioners or religious organisations. It needs existing laws of general application to be enforced. It needs Parliament to exercise proper oversight. It needs the CRL to remain within its constitutional and statutory mandate. And it needs faith communities to take responsibility through voluntary, community-owned ethical frameworks such as the Religious Freedom Charter and Code of Conduct.
“The way forward is not state control dressed up as self-regulation,” says Swain. “The way forward is accountable freedom, existing law properly enforced, and ethical standards developed by faith communities themselves.”
The CRL may wish to read the recent parliamentary engagement as a victory.
It would be wiser to read it as a warning.
