The CRL Rights Commission made misleading claims and ommitted key facts in a joint media statement it issued on Monday with several local ministerial fraternals, seeking to justify its renewed push for legislation to establish a Peer Review Committee system for regulating religion, say Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA).
In a press statement released yesterday, FOR SA says :it is important that the public – and especially South Africa’s faith communities – understand the whole picture so as not to be misled”.
In the paragraphs below, FOR SA “fact checks” claims in the CRL joint media statement and explains why it believes that the CRL’s bid to revive a campaign that has already been rejected by key stakeholders is a threat to religious freedom.
- Advertisement -
- Parliament rejected the CRL’s call for legislation
The CRL claims to rely on the 2018 Report of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). What it does not say is that the same Report did not support the CRL’s proposals for legislation to regulate religion. In other words, the CRL’s call for legislation regulating the religious sector was effectively rejected.
The Committee’s Report noted that most religious organisations were of the view that: • “The CRL Rights Commission is not the body that should be regulating the sector” • “There was disagreement over [the] Constitutionality of recommendations of the CRL” • “Denominations have been self-regulated and this [has] been working well for them” The Report also noted that the CRL itself was of the view that “There were enough existing laws that could deal with the prevailing religious challenges” – though gaps in enforcement needed to be addressed.
Instead of endorsing the CRL’s plan, COGTA recommended that the religious community develop mechanisms of accountability, including a charter for self-regulation and a code of conduct. In other words, not a state-controlled system. - The CRL has no legal mandate to regulate religion
The CRL Act of 2002 grants the Commission the authority to educate, investigate, advise, and recommend – but not to regulate or control religious communities. Even Prof. David Mosoma, who chaired the CRL from 2019 to 2024, confirmed this reality by not pursuing the agenda of his predecessor.
In July 2025, the Speaker of Parliament formally confirmed in writing that the 2018 COGTA Report “lapsed at the end of the 2018 Parliament and was never revived”. It therefore has no binding legal effect, and the CRL has no mandate or obligation to implement it. - Faith communities have already developed a Code of Conduct
The religious sector responded positively and responsibly to COGTA’s recommendations in its 2018 Report. The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa (TEASA) initiated, and the South African Council for the Protection and Promotion of Religious Rights and Freedoms (SACRRF) developed, a Code of Conduct for Religion in South Africa.
This Code was grounded in the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms, a landmark document adopted by over 20 million people across the faith spectrum. It provides a clear and voluntary framework of accountability by and for religious communities themselves.
Why, then, is the CRL attempting to push for a new “Code of Conduct” through state processes when one already exists – developed inclusively by the faith community, rooted in our Constitution, and voluntarily adopted by millions? This Code is free to be adopted (“as is” or adapted to its specific context) by any faith community. - The church has strengthened self-regulation
Since 2018, the Christian faith community has made significant progress in strengthening voluntary self-regulation, particularly among independent churches that were not previously part of any umbrella structure.
This has culminated in the formation of the South African Community of Faith-based Fraternals and Federations (SACOFF) under the leadership of Pastor Bert Pretorius. SACOFF now represents 229 federations and networks, comprising 20,902 churches and approximately 5 million Christians.
This development demonstrates that the faith sector has taken the CRL’s concerns about abuse and Parliament’s recommendations seriously and is already ensuring stronger accountability through voluntary, community-driven structures – without the need for state control. - The Religious Leaders’ Summit rejected CRL’s proposals
At the national Religious Leaders’ Summit in February 2019 – co-convened by the CRL and the late Pastor Ray McCauley – hundreds of senior leaders from across the faith spectrum debated the CRL’s proposals. The outcome was clear:
• The CRL was told it is “inappropriate and unacceptable for the CRL to dictate to the Church how to regulate its affairs”.
• The Summit resolved that state regulation of religion is not an option. - Real problems must be dealt with under existing law
There is no dispute that abuses occur in the religious sector. However, South Africa already has a strong legal framework to address them: criminal law, tax law, consumer protection, child protection legislation, and more.
The rule of law applies equally to all South Africans. There is no such thing in law as a “spiritual crime”. If a law is broken – whether by a pastor, imam, rabbi, or any other citizen – the State has the responsibility to enforce it equally and effectively. The real problem is the enforcement of existing laws, not the absence of them. Adding another layer of legislation will not solve this. - “Self-regulation” cannot mean state control
The CRL’s proposal to enforce, by legislation, the Code of Conduct it is developing is nothing less than a state-driven system of control – not self-regulation.
As Bishop Zipho Siwa (then President of the SACC) warned in Parliament in 2018, when this matter was extensively debated: “In whatever ‘self-regulatory’ terms this is couched, these regulatory bodies will be state-appointed, state-funded and state-controlled. As a result, the proposed legislation effectively amounts to state regulation of religion.”
Stephen Brislin, Archbishop of Cape Town, was equally forthright: “The recommendation that new laws be introduced to enforce registration of pastors and ministers is overkill and a response one would expect more from a totalitarian state than a constitutional democracy.”
Under such a regime, every pastor, imam, rabbi or faith leader would have to apply to a peer review committee, approved by the CRL, for permission to minister. This is not freedom – it is state regulation in disguise. - Discrimination undermines equality before the law
It is also deeply concerning that the CRL has chosen to target only one sector of the faith community – the Christian sector – through its Section 22 Committee investigations. No doubt, any outcome in the form of legislation will apply equally to all faiths in South Africa.
To exclude other religious communities from consultation is discriminatory and constitutes a breach of Section 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law.
Conclusion
South Africa has already had this debate – extensively, transparently, and inclusively. It was settled in 2019, when Parliament, the faith community, and even the government itself confirmed that state regulation of religion is unnecessary, unworkable, and unconstitutional.
The CRL’s current proposals not only threaten freedom of religion under Section 15 of the Constitution but also violate the principle of equality before the law under Section 9 by targeting only one sector of the faith community. Any legislation arising from such a process would impact all faiths, without their voices having been heard.
Please help us to keep on publishing news that brings Hope in Jesus:
- Advertisement -
>> Donate >> Become a Super Subscriber
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/gatewaynews100
- Advertisement -
COMMENTING GUIDELINES
You are welcome to engage with our articles by making comments [in the Comments area below] that add value to a topic or to engage in thoughtful, constructive discussion with fellow readers. Comments that contain vulgar language will be removed. Hostile, demeaning, disrespectful, propagandistic and off-topic comments may also be moved. This is a Christian website and if you wish to vent against Christian beliefs you have probably come to the wrong place and your comments may be removed. Ongoing debates and repetitiveness will not be tolerated. You will also disqualify yourself from commenting if you engage in trolling.
