comments2

2026-06-25 05:59:34 +02:00

Isaac

No I do not

Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights

2026-06-24 22:23:10 +02:00

Andre

No I do not

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 22:16:04 +02:00

Erlank

No I do not

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 22:12:30 +02:00

Andre

No I do not

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 21:08:22 +02:00

Lindiwe

No I do not

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 19:38:10 +02:00

johan

No I do not

All of the above

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 18:52:59 +02:00

Johnny

No I do not

All of the above

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 14:18:20 +02:00

Ebrahim

No I do not

All of the above

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

2026-06-24 12:51:28 +02:00

Willem

No I do not

All of the above

Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights

2026-06-24 12:46:22 +02:00

Glenda

Yes I do

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

Freedom of speech, religion and culture

2026-06-24 12:45:04 +02:00

Babs

No I do not

Duplication of Existing Laws (Unnecessary Regulation)

I/we oppose any controlling or compulsory regulation of religion beyond general law, including any statutory or State-enabled regulatory council; mandatory registration of churches, ministries, or leaders; State-imposed codes of conduct; licensing, accreditation, vetting, or approval of religious actors; any “seal of good standing”; forced participation in umbrella bodies or peer review structures; and any register capable of indirect control.

2026-06-24 12:41:48 +02:00

Robb

No I do not

Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights

my comment: Constitutional foundation
Religious freedom in South Africa is protected by sections 15, 18, and 31 of the Constitution, and given content by the Religious Freedom Charter, to which the CRL is itself a signatory. Religious freedom is a right, not a privilege the State may grant, suspend, or withdraw. Religious organisations must comply with laws of general application, such as tax, criminal law, child safeguarding, labour, and NPO law, but no State body has spiritual jurisdiction over doctrine, ordination, calling, worship, leadership, or internal religious governance, directly or indirectly.

2026-06-24 11:21:18 +02:00

Lydia

No I do not

Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard)

2026-06-24 10:01:04 +02:00

Roelof

Not fully

All of the above

Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights

2026-06-24 09:59:08 +02:00

Salvador

No I do not

All of the above

State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine

Constitutional foundation
Religious freedom in South Africa is protected by sections 15, 18, and 31 of the Constitution, and given content by the Religious Freedom Charter, to which the CRL is itself a signatory. Religious freedom is a right, not a privilege the State may grant, suspend, or withdraw. Religious organisations must comply with laws of general application, such as tax, criminal law, child safeguarding, labour, and NPO law, but no State body has spiritual jurisdiction over doctrine, ordination, calling, worship, leadership, or internal religious governance, directly or indirectly.

Objection to State regulation of religion
I oppose any controlling or compulsory regulation of religion beyond general law, including any statutory or State-enabled regulatory council; mandatory registration of churches, ministries, or leaders; State-imposed codes of conduct; licensing, accreditation, vetting, or approval of religious actors; any “seal of good standing”; forced participation in umbrella bodies or peer review structures; and any register capable of indirect control.

The proposal in the “Final Draft Christian Sector Self-Regulatory Framework in RSA” is:
• Unconstitutional, failing the section 36 limitations test;
• Unnecessary, given that existing law already addresses every category of harm raised;
• Unworkable, given the operational impossibility of registering, monitoring, and maintaining current records on every religious organisation and practitioner, together with the staffing, database infrastructure, and compliance systems that such scale would demand; and
• Unaffordable, with the resulting reported costs running into hundreds of millions, ultimately borne by taxpayers, churches, and practitioners themselves.
Section 22 of the Constitution protects trade and occupation; it does not authorise the licensing of religion, still less the State’s regulation of religious doctrine as though it were a profession governed by settled, peer-reviewed expertise. Religious doctrine is a matter of faith and conviction, not a scientific body of knowledge to be standardised by the State.

Foreign religious workers
Concerns about foreign nationals founding or leading churches are properly addressed through immigration law, not through a religious regulatory framework. The Department of Home Affairs already has, and may strengthen, the mechanisms to assess foreign religious workers at the visa stage, as is common in other democracies. By contrast, nationality-based requirements imposed through religious regulation risk moving beyond legitimate immigration oversight into the regulation of religion itself. The appropriate solution is to review the existing immigration laws and processes and to ensure they are applied efficiently, fairly and effectively.

Existing law is sufficient
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.

Assault, fraud, sexual offences, child harm, financial misconduct, and exploitation are already addressable under criminal law, the Children’s Act, NPO and tax law, labour law, and ordinary criminal and/or civil remedies. The solution is proper, effective law enforcement, reporting, and coordination.

Process concerns
The lawfulness of the Section 22 Committee is currently under challenge in the High Court in two cases filed by the South African Church Defenders (SACD) and the South African Muslim Lawyers Association (SAMLA). The COGTA Portfolio Committee should not consider any report from this process until the courts have ruled. The framing of this consultation as exploring “voluntary self-regulation” is contradicted by the Section 22 Committee’s Terms of Reference, which expressly call for a “legislative framework”.

The CRL Chair’s own public statements propose a council that would be “created and empowered by an Act of Parliament”, that State authority should extend beyond illegality into the regulation of ethics, with a Council empowered to decide “where your right to religious freedom begins and ends”. That is a serious constitutional claim, incompatible with the Constitution’s limits on State interference in belief and conscience.

Alternative solutions to State regulation
I support:
• Voluntary ministers’ networks and fraternals providing relationship-based accountability;
• The existing faith sector-led Code of Conduct for Religions, kept voluntarily and not converted into State rules.
• Effective investigation, referral, and enforcement under existing law, including better use of the CRL’s section 5 powers;
• Voluntary governance, compliance, and safeguarding training;
• Robust child and vulnerable-person protection using existing safeguarding instruments and registers;
• If any register is used at all, it must be strictly voluntary, non-intrusive, and never tied to permission to minister.

Wider civil society implications
The regulatory architecture proposed here is not confined to religion. Once the State creates a statutory framework to license one fundamental right, that legal template becomes available for application to other voluntary associations: the press, NGOs, professional bodies, and community organisations. The shift from freedoms protected by default to freedoms approved by the State has implications well beyond the religious sector.

Conclusion
I reject any proposal that would result in the regulation, licensing, approval, or control of religion by the State, directly or indirectly.
I call on Parliament and all relevant institutions to reject any legislative agenda and to support constitutionally compliant alternatives.
I note that the CRL is itself a signatory to this Charter and should therefore abide by its provisions.
I make this submission because the question whether religion will remain a protected constitutional freedom or become a conditional right subject to State approval and control is a matter of deep public importance, including to religious freedom, constitutional democracy, and human rights culture.

Participation under protest and without prejudice
My engagement is grounded in the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms (the Religious Freedom Charter), which gives important content to the constitutional protection of religious freedom in South Africa.

I support the continued use of the Charter (read with its “explanatory notes”), its accompanying Code of Conduct for Religions in South Africa (the Code of Conduct for Religions), and other voluntary sector-led instruments as the primary framework for addressing religious freedom, responsibility, and accountability in this country.

This submission is made under protest and without prejudice. My/our participation is not an acceptance of the lawfulness or legitimacy of the Section 22 Committee, its mandate, composition, or processes; it is not an endorsement of any regulatory outcome; and it is not an acceptance that the State may regulate religion beyond the laws of general application using the least restrictive means. All rights are expressly reserved.