The South African Church Defenders (SACD) has filed an application in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg challenging the lawfulness of a Section 22 committee established by the CRL Rights Commission.
The contested Section 22 committee, chaired by Professor Musa Xulu, was officially launched in October.
According to the CRL Rights Commission, its mandate is to strengthen oversight, promote accountability and curb abuse within churches and other faith-based institutions.
The committee’s work led to the publication of a draft self-regulatory framework for churches on 19 December.
ALSO READ: ‘Over our dead bodies’: Church leaders march against ‘state regulation’ of religion
Among its proposals is the establishment of an independent Christian Practice Council for Ethics and Accountability, tasked with certifying organisations that meet prescribed standards.
The committee is expected to conduct nationwide consultations and develop recommendations for submission to parliament within 12 months.
However, the initiative has sparked strong opposition from some religious leaders, who argue that it amounts to undue state interference in religious affairs.
SACD takes legal action
SACD chairperson Pastor Mukhuba confirmed that the organisation has approached the courts in an effort to halt what it views as an attempt to control churches.
The legal challenge, Mukhuba clarified, is not about “resisting accountability or protecting wrongdoing”, but rather about defending the fundamental right to freedom of religion.
She indicated that the SACD is seeking the court to declare the establishment of the Section 22 committee unlawful, to rule that its actions are invalid and to order that the structure be dismantled.
READ MORE: Church leaders unveil self-regulation framework to combat abuse and restore public trust
According to Mukhuba, the draft framework is unconstitutional because it exceeds the CRL Rights Commission’s statutory mandate.
“Although the framework is presented as voluntary and by churches for churches, it was drafted by a Section 22 committee appointed by the commission for the commission and under a Chapter 9 institution, in substance, it amounts to state-driven regulation of religion through indirect means.
“The CRL’s claims of desiring self-regulation are expressly refuted by clause 2.3 of their own draft framework, which proposes legislation to establish a state-appointed, state-funded and state-controlled quasi-judicial body that will have unspecified but broad powers to regulate the religious sector.
“This reveals their clear intention to impose a system of state regulation of religion.”
Watch the SACD’s briefing below:
‘Directly contradicts the Constitution’
Mukhuba argued that the role of the CRL Rights Commission is to protect and promote religious communities, not to dictate how churches govern themselves.
In the SACD’s view, a Section 22 committee should only advise, conduct research and consult, rather than legislate, enforce rules or regulate religious institutions.
“The draft framework attempts to dictate how churches should organise themselves, appoint leaders, manage finances, and govern their internal affairs. This directly contradicts the Constitution.”
READ MORE: St John Apostolic Church torn apart as leadership battle intensifies
Mukhuba further contended that the framework violates the equality clause in Section 9 of the Constitution by singling out churches for special regulatory treatment that is not applied to other civil society organisations.
“This selective targeting is unfair, and it is unconstitutional. Although described as voluntary, the framework introduces registration requirements, accreditation standards, and a so-called seal of good standing.”
She warned that, in practice, churches without such certification could be marginalised or pressured to comply, creating indirect force and undermining genuine religious freedom.
“The framework for the paints churches as morally suspect or inherently dangerous. This narrative is misleading.”
Existing laws sufficient
Mukhuba said South African law already provides adequate mechanisms to address criminal conduct within religious institutions.
She cited offences such as fraud, assault, sexual abuse, child abuse and financial misconduct, which she argued are already dealt with by the law enforcement authorities and the courts.
“There is no justification for imposing an additional regulatory regime on religious communities. At the heart of this matter is a deeper concern about abuse of power.
“We are concerned about officials who do not respect their constitutional mandate, who disregard the constitution and who seek to interfere in sacred matters.
READ MORE: Husband sentenced for shooting wife in church before congregation
“South Africa must never become a country where state decides who may hear from God, who may start a church or how faith may be practised.
“We reject any attempt by the state to regulate spiritual callings or place itself above God. Matters of faith are beyond human control.
“While we fully respect the constitution and the just enforcement of the rule of law, we are accountable to the Lord, not to political authorities in matters of doctrine and calling.”
Divisions and international warnings
Mukhuba also raised concerns about growing divisions within Christian communities, saying pastors are increasingly portrayed as separate from their congregants or labelled as delinquents.
“The wrongdoing of a few cannot justify branding an entire faith community as problematic.”
She added that religious affiliation is a personal choice and that individuals should be empowered to understand and protect their rights.
“Corruption must never be allowed to replace holiness, nor should any human attempt to rule in God’s domain.”
She further warned that international examples demonstrate the risks of increased state control over religion, citing countries such as Rwanda and Russia, where stricter regulation has allegedly led to church closures.
“South Africa must not follow the same path. We therefore reject the proposed regulations in any form.
“Churches must be allowed to govern themselves. Law enforcement must focus on real criminal conduct.”
NOW READ: False evidence, fake IDs and threats see IPHC leader Mike Sandlana denied bail
About the Author
