When the Law Is Enforced, Justice Is Done: Why South Africa Does Not Need New Laws to Stop “Abuses” in the Church

Opinion | When the Law Is Enforced, Justice Is Done: Why South Africa Does Not Need New Laws to Stop “Abuses” in the Church

For almost a decade, the CRL Rights Commission has maintained that new laws are needed to prevent “abuses” in the religious sector. Its most recent proposal, a peer review system that would license and oversee every religious practitioner, would, in effect, place faith under state control.

But this claim fails a basic factual test. South Africa already has a comprehensive body of criminal and civil law that covers every category of abuse the CRL has cited — from fraud and sexual exploitation to assault and psychological harm. These laws apply equally to all citizens, including those in positions of religious authority. When these laws are properly enforced, justice is served. When they are not, the issue lies with enforcement failures, not the legislation itself.

The real challenge is not in the law itself, but in its application — especially in the ability, capacity, and willingness of the criminal justice system, and the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in particular, to ensure those who misuse positions of spiritual authority are properly held accountable. Civil society, and especially persons of faith, also have amoral responsibility to call out and report abuse and crime.

The Omotoso case: when the system fails the victims

The long, painful saga of Nigerian pastor Timothy Omotoso, finally acquitted after seven years of trial delays, exemplifies the crisis. Omotoso faced multiple counts of rape, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation of minors — all offences already criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act and the Prevention and Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act. There was no gap in the law. The problem was the implementation of justice.

As FOR SA highlighted in its commentary on the verdict, this case revealed a justice system “buckling under the weight of its own inefficiencies”. Years of delays, inconsistent prosecution, and overburdened courts left victims traumatised and the public disillusioned.

The lesson is clear: when investigations are poorly handled and cases are prolonged, even the strongest law becomes useless. Or put another way: of what use is a law if it is not implemented? Introducing new religious-control laws will not resolve what is ultimately a justice reform issue. If anything, the Omotoso trial underscores the urgent need to strengthen the capacity, resources, and coordination of the NPA and the courts — not to regulate religion.

The Seven Angels tragedy: when institutions neglect their duty

In contrast to the Omotoso case, where justice faltered in court, the Seven Angels Ministry tragedy in Ngcobo exposed a different failure — institutional negligence. The CRL Rights Commission visited the cult in 2016 and was aware that it was breaking the law. Two years later, seven individuals, including five police officers, were killed when members of the cult attacked the Ngcobo police station.

The CRL has since claimed that Parliament’s refusal to grant it greater powers was to blame for the tragedy. However, this is disingenuous. Under the CRL Rights Commission Act (Act 19 of 2002), the Commission already has the authority to investigate, summon witnesses, and refer matters to relevant state agencies with recommended actions to address the issues it uncovers. It does not require new powers; it needed to act decisively within its existing mandate.

This case demonstrates that even the most effective legislative frameworks are ineffective if the responsible institutions fail to perform their duties. This tragedy underlines how dangerous it becomes when oversight bodies confuse advocacy with action. If the CRL genuinely aims to prevent future tragedies, it should enhance its internal investigative and referral capabilities — not pursue quasi-judicial powers to “license” and control religious life.

The “Prophet of Doom”: when justice works as it should

In clear contrast, the case of the so-called “Prophet of Doom”, who sprayed congregants with insecticide claiming it would heal them, illustrates exactly how the rule of law should operate. Public outrage was followed by swift action: the pastor was charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced under existing criminal statutes. No special religious law was necessary; ordinary health, safety, and criminal laws were sufficient to safeguard the public.

This case also confirmed an important principle: there is no “religious freedom” defence for criminal or lawless behaviour. South Africa’s Constitution protects freedom of belief and worship — but not unlawful acts disguised as faith.

When the law is enforced, abuses are punished, victims are protected, and public confidence injustice is strengthened. It is precisely this kind of consistent, impartial enforcement that prevents the“abuse” problem from metastasising.

A redemption story: when the NPA gets it right

Earlier this year, the NPA announced the successful conviction and sentencing of a pastor to 55 years in prison for the rape of young church members.

This was more than just another criminal conviction. It was a statement — a vindication of the justice system’s ability to hold even those cloaked in religious authority accountable. The court appropriately recognised that abusing one’s position of trust within a faith community is an aggravating factor in sentencing. This sends a powerful deterrent message: spiritual authority does not place anyone above the law. The NPA deserves commendation for its professionalism and diligence in this case. It demonstrates that, when prosecutors are properly resourced, trained, and motivated, South Africa’s legal system can deliver justice with both firmness and fairness.

This case starkly contrasts with the failures that marked the Omotoso trial. It also demonstrates that we do not require new laws to address “abuses” in the church. Instead, we need existing laws to been forced effectively, consistently, and without fear or favour.

The constitutional bottom line

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in South Africa’s Constitution, protected under Sections15 (individually) and 31 (communally). Any restriction on this right must pass the Section 36 test, meaning it has to be reasonable, justifiable, and the least restrictive way to achieve a legitimate aim.

The CRL’s Section 22 Committee’s proposed draft legislative framework, which includes powers to suspend religious practitioners on mere allegation, would not withstand that test. It would amount to prior restraint on ministry, a power the State does not exercise over any other sphere of belief or expression.
‍
In contrast, proper law enforcement and judicial oversight already satisfy the Section 36 standard:they safeguard the vulnerable without infringing on fundamental freedoms.

The real solution: enforce the law, strengthen the system

The three case studies, Omotoso, Seven Angels, and the “Prophet of Doom”, reveal a single truth. The “bridge” between abuse and accountability is not new legislation but law enforcement. When the State fails to act, victims suffer and public trust diminishes. When it acts decisively and lawfully, as the NPA did in securing the 55-year sentence, justice is upheld and deterrence is reinforced. The solution, therefore, is not to place the church under State control. Instead, it is to ensure that the State itself enforces its own laws. The true way forward does not lie in new regulation but in renewed dedication, by the NPA, SAPS, and the CRL itself, to fulfil their duties with the powers and prerogatives they already hold.

- The NPA must be empowered and supported to pursue prosecutions effectively and swiftly.

- The CRL must utilise its existing powers to investigate and refer matters promptly and transparently.

- Faith communities must report wrongdoing and collaborate fully with law enforcement.

In short: do the job, do it well, and do it within the law we already have. When that occurs, justice will not require new legislation — only the courage and competence to enforce what already exists.