summary

Advert

Advert – scroll down

There is a national consensus that abuse, exploitation, and criminal conduct within religious spaces must be addressed decisively. The CRL Rights Commission, through its Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee, has released a Draft Self-Regulatory Framework aimed at fostering transparency, ethical leadership, and protecting the vulnerable. This framework is presented as a “proactive, voluntary initiative” by the faith sector to restore public trust.

While the goal of accountability is shared, there is significant debate over the mechanism proposed to achieve it:

Includes the establishment of a Christian Practice Council for Ethics and Accountability (CPCEA), a public register of certified organiations, and a “Seal of Good Standing”. Critics, including Freedom of Religion SA (FoRSA), point out that while described as “self-regulation,” the framework explicitly calls for a legislative Act of Parliament to empower the Council.

Opponents argue the proposal is Unconstitutional (violating freedom of religion and association), Unnecessary (existing criminal and civil laws already cover the harms identified), Unworkable (standardizing diverse beliefs is impossible), and Unaffordable.

Critics advocate for a model of “Accountability without Control”. This focuses on the consistent enforcement of existing laws (such as the Children’s Act and criminal law) and the adoption of voluntary, sector-led initiatives like the Religious Freedom Charter and umbrella bodies like SACOFF.

This campaign is not limited to those of faith. It serves as a critical test of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. If the State establishes a statutory council to “license” a fundamental right like religion, it sets a legal precedent for similar “councils” to oversee other sectors—including the press, community activists, and private associations.

Questions and answers

It is a document prepared by the Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee for the CRL Rights Commission. Its stated goal is to create a legislative framework to setup a peer-review system of accountability, registration and ethical leadership within all religious organisations.

While the current draft is specifically focused on the Christian sector , the CRL Chair has stated that the ultimate goal is an Act of Parliament to create a Council for the entire religious sector. If we allow a fundamental right to become conditional on a State-enabled “seal” or license, the same logic can eventually be applied to the press, NGOs, and community activists.

Under the proposed framework, religious institutions that comply with specific governance and ethical standards will be awarded a “Seal of Good Standing”.

    • The Reward: It serves as a public signal that the organization is trustworthy.
    • The Penalty: Organizations that do not comply or lose their seal may face public notification and deregistration.

True self-regulation is entirely voluntary and led by the sector itself. Critics point out that this framework:

    1. Was initiated by a State body (the CRL).
    2. Proposes a legislative framework created by an Act of Parliament.
    3. Would be implemented by a statutory council with legal authority.
      When a fundamental right like religion becomes dependent on a government-sanctioned license or “seal,” it moves from being a protected right to a conditional privilege.

Opponents of the framework categorize their objections into four main pillars:

Argument Definition
Unconstitutional

It violates Sections 15, 18, and 31 of the Constitution by making religious practice conditional on State-enabled approval .

Unnecessary

South Africa already has criminal, child protection, and financial laws to prosecute abuse. The issue is enforcement, not a lack of law.

Unworkable

Religion is too diverse to be standardised like a profession; a central council cannot determine which “ethics” or “doctrines” are correct.

Unaffordable

It imposes unnecessary financial burdens on faith communities and taxpayers to run a new regulatory bureaucracy.

Criminal acts like assault, fraud, and sexual abuse are already illegal under existing South African law. Critics argue that we do not need new “religious laws” to stop crimes; we need the police and NPA to consistently enforce the laws we already have.

This is a test case for all civil liberties. If the government can successfully create a statutory council to “oversee” the exercise of one constitutional right (religion), it sets a legal precedent to do the same for others .

    • The Logic: If “bad actors” in religion justify a State council, then “bad actors” in the media, community activism, or NGOs could be used to justify State oversight of those sectors next.

Yes. By using the DearSouthAfrica platform, your specific comments are delivered directly to the Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee and the relevant parliamentary structures. This creates a formal, legal record of public sentiment that must be considered during the legislative process .

The draft regulations

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [136.02 KB]

The CRL notice

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?
Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [171.57 KB]

FoRSA. On the 21st of April, FOR SA met with the CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 Committee in Johannesburg to raise serious constitutional concerns regarding the proposed framework for the Christian sector.
We made it clear that:
⚖️ Abuse and misconduct must be addressed
📜 But legislation regulating religion fundamentally changes the relationship between the State and faith communities
The process is now formally underway and provincial consultations are expected to continue across South Africa over the coming months.

SA Church Defenders. Press Conference Regarding the CRL Rights Commission – Section 22 Committee

Statements and media releases

Click on a logo to view.

Want to display your organisation’s statement? Click here.