Advert
Advert – scroll down
0
comments individually delivered so far
-
-
- No I do not support the draft 9820
- Yes I do 132
- Not fully 103
-
The CRL Rights Commission is again pushing for Parliament to pass legislation and implement a system of State regulation of religion and has released the “Draft Self-Regulatory Framework for the Christian Sector”.
This initiative, led by the CRL’s Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee, is presented as a voluntary effort by the Church to promote transparency, ethical leadership, and the protection of vulnerable congregants from abuse and exploitation.
While the CRL maintains that this is not about State control , organisations like Freedom of Religion SA (FOR SA) have raised serious alarms. They argue that the framework serves as a “mask” for a legislative agenda that will eventually result in an Act of Parliament and a statutory council with the power to deregister religious leaders and institutions.
click the link for more info, or scroll down to have your say
Have your say – shape the regulations.
Top concerns
Constitutional Rights Are Not State Grants
-
- The Conflict:
Freedom of religion and association are fundamental constitutional rights, not state-licensed privileges. They cannot lawfully be made conditional on State approval. - The Overreach:
The proposed framework would make these rights conditional on a State-enabled structure, through devices such as a “Seal of Good Standing”, mandatory registration, licensing, or approved peer-review bodies. - The Section Violations:
The proposal violates Section 15 (freedom of religion and conscience), Section 18 (freedom of association, including the freedom not to be compelled into a State-approved body), and Section 31 (the right of religious communities to maintain their own institutions) of the Constitution. - The Limitation Test:
Under Section 36, any limitation must be reasonable, justifiable, and the least restrictive means available. Existing laws of general application already address every harm cited by the CRL, so this proposal fails that test and is an unconstitutional overreach.
- The Conflict:
Existing Law Is Already Sufficient
-
- Sufficient Protection:
South Africa already has a comprehensive legal framework capable of addressing every category of harm cited by the CRL, in religious spaces and in every other sector. - Applicable Laws:
Criminal law (assault, fraud, theft, intimidation, coercion, sexual offences), the Children’s Act, domestic violence and vulnerable-person protections, NPO and tax law, labour law, consumer protection, and ordinary civil remedies already provide strong, overlapping protections. - The Real Issue:
The problem is not the absence of law, but weaknesses in enforcement, reporting, coordination, and public awareness of remedies already available. - Inefficiency:
A new regulatory system duplicates existing frameworks and diverts resources from the effective enforcement of laws already on the books. The proper remedy is enforcement, not converting a constitutional freedom into a licensed activity.
- Sufficient Protection:
Doctrine Is Not the State’s to Decide
-
- Illegal vs. Unethical:
The State has a legitimate duty to prosecute illegal conduct. It has no jurisdiction over what is merely “unethical” within a religious community. The CRL Chair has publicly stated that the proposed council would extend State authority beyond illegality into ethics. That is incompatible with the Constitution. - Subjectivity:
“Ethics” in a religious context are not neutral. They are inextricably bound to specific doctrines, traditions, and conscience. There is no neutral State standard for what counts as acceptable belief, ministry, or religious discipline. - Intrusion:
Once the State claims authority to regulate religious ethics, it begins, directly or indirectly, to determine which beliefs and practices are “acceptable”. This is a direct intrusion into private conscience and doctrine. South African courts already recognise the danger of State entanglement in doctrinal disputes, and history shows that State enforcement of orthodoxy leads to exclusion, oppression, and abuse.
- Illegal vs. Unethical:
Why Standardisation Cannot Work
-
- Diversity of Faith:
Religion is diverse, decentralised, and doctrinally contested. Leadership is recognised through vocation, calling, doctrine, ordination, or community recognition, not through a State-defined professional model. Section 22 of the Constitution protects the right to choose a trade or occupation; it does not authorise the licensing of religion. The assumption that religion can be regulated like law, medicine, or accounting is fundamentally flawed. - Unresolvable Questions:
No central body can answer the questions a regulatory regime requires. Which doctrine becomes the standard? Who qualifies as a “religious practitioner”: pastors, elders, worship leaders, counsellors, Sunday school teachers, ministry volunteers, small-group leaders, and on what criteria? How are conflicting beliefs adjudicated? There is no neutral State standard available for any of these. - Selective Enforcement:
In practice, an unworkable system is enforced selectively. The result is bias, inequality, and ongoing conflict, while genuine accountability is no better served than under existing law.
- Diversity of Faith:
Civil Society’s Stake in This Debate
-
- Beyond Religion:
This is not only a Christian sector issue. The constitutional principles at stake (freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and protection from State interference in voluntary communities) apply to every private association in South Africa. - The Precedent:
If the State creates a statutory council to license a fundamental right like freedom of religion, it lays a legal template that can be applied to any other association: the press, NGOs, professional bodies, community organisations, advocacy groups, or labour formations. The reasoning that justifies it for one sector becomes available for use against any other. - State Control:
The deeper shift is constitutional. It moves South Africa from a model in which freedoms are protected by default to one in which freedoms are “approved” and “regulated” by the State. Every citizen has a stake in resisting that shift.
- Beyond Religion:
Immigration, Not Religious Regulation
-
- Internal Interference:
The framework dictates internal governance, including how leaders are appointed, recognised, or removed. Section 31 protects religious communities’ right to maintain their own institutions, and Section 18 protects the right not to be forced into State-approved governance structures. - Nationality Requirements:
The mandate that churches founded by foreign nationals have a South African majority on their local governing structure addresses concerns that belong at the immigration stage, not in religious regulation. The Department of Home Affairs already has, and can sharpen, the tools to scrutinise foreign religious workers at the visa stage. In the United States, for example, religious worker visas require evidence of ordination and letters of reference from a recognised religious organisation. This places the question where it belongs: under ordinary immigration law, not under a religious regulatory regime. - Autonomy:
Once the State sets the rules for who may lead within a religious community, it has crossed from legitimate immigration scrutiny and law enforcement into the regulation of religion itself. Religious communities must remain free to determine their own internal leadership in accordance with their own doctrines and traditions.
- Internal Interference:
Perspectives: What is the debate?
The proposal to regulate the religious sector has sparked a significant national debate. Below are the primary arguments from both the Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee and the opposing civil society groups like Freedom of Religion SA (FOR SA).
-
- Standardising Accountability:
Proponents argue the framework is essential to establish clear standards for internal governance, financial transparency, and ethical leadership within religious organisations to restore public trust. - Protecting the Vulnerable:
The initiative aims to safeguard marginalised communities, including the poor and those with disabilities, from exploitation and harmful “healing” practices. - Sector-Led Reform:
The Committee describes the process as a voluntary, proactive initiative “by the Church, for the Church,” allowing the sector to govern itself rather than facing direct State intervention. - Independent Oversight:
Supporters emphasise that the proposed Christian Practice Council for Ethics and Accountability (CPCEA) would be an independent body of respected religious leaders and experts, not a government department. - What the Terms of Reference Say:
Although the process is framed as voluntary and sector-led, the Section 22 Committee’s Terms of Reference expressly mandate a “legislative framework”. By definition, this requires an Act of Parliament and would establish a statutory body with legal authority. No amount of “voluntary” or “self-regulatory” framing can change what the Terms of Reference actually require.
- Standardising Accountability:
-
- The Legislative “Mask”:
While the consultation is presented as voluntary, the proposed end-point is a statutory council created by an Act of Parliament, with legal authority that would include the power to deregister institutions and to accredit or withdraw recognition from religious leaders. The voluntary framing of the process does not change the regulatory character of what is being proposed. - The Four Main Objections:
Opponents argue that the proposal is unconstitutional (violating sections 15, 18, and 31 of the Constitution and failing the section 36 limitations test), unnecessary (existing laws already address every category of harm cited by the CRL), unworkable (religion is diverse and doctrinally contested, with no neutral State standard), and unaffordable (reported costs run into hundreds of millions). - Regulation of “Ethics”:
The CRL Chair has publicly stated that State authority should extend beyond illegality into the regulation of “ethics”. This is incompatible with the Constitution, because it moves the State from prosecuting criminal conduct into determining matters of belief, doctrine, and private conscience. - A Precedent for All Civil Society:
A State-enabled council to license one fundamental right lays a legal template that can later be applied to other voluntary associations, including the press, NGOs, professional bodies, and community organisations. The constitutional shift from freedoms protected by default to freedoms approved by the State has implications well beyond religion.
- The Legislative “Mask”: