The Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs on Wednesday heard strong objections from religious and faith-based leaders regarding the Commission for Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights (CRL) Commission’s Section 22 Committee. During the meeting, representatives from various Christian and other faith formations argued that the CRL’s current process risks constitutional overreach and is not inclusive.
Pastor Mpfariseni Mukhuba of the South African Church Defenders told the committee that a previous parliamentary process between 2017 and 2020 considered and ultimately rejected the regulation of religious institutions, including proposals for compulsory peer review. She reminded members that, at that time, the committee had recognised serious constitutional risks associated with such regulation and had not recommended legislation. The Pastor said that the CRL Commission is now revisiting this with a substantively similar proposal, framed as self-regulation. “But the change in terminology does not alter the constitutional analysis, she said.
According to Pastor Mukhuba, Chapter 9 institutions must act independently and impartially. In this context, she further raised concerns about the conduct of the CRL leadership. The Pastor pointed to public statements attributed to the Chairperson of the CRL Commission that were not only troubling but also undermined the neutrality required of an office bearer of a Chapter 9 institution. The Pastor called for the suspension or removal of the CRL Commission Chairperson pending an investigation and for the Section 22 Committee to be disbanded. “We do not oppose accountability, but we oppose unconstitutional control. We do not resist engagement; we resist predetermined outcomes,” she said.
Alternative Solutions Proposed
Mr Michael Swain, the spokesperson for Freedom of Religion South Africa, outlined several alternative approaches developed within the religious sector. He told members that senior faith leaders had commissioned the development of a code of conduct linked to the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms. He said this code was developed by and for faith communities and offers a self-regulatory framework consistent with constitutional principles.
According to Mr Swain, the formation of national faith bodies, representing thousands of churches and religious organisations, was intended to strengthen accountability within the sector. He told the committee that faith leaders had met with the CRL Commission in May last year and had offered to implement accountability measures cooperatively, but that the offer had not been accepted.
He urged the committee to consider non-legislative alternatives and cautioned against coercive regulation where less restrictive solutions had not been fully pursued. Mr Swain further reminded the committee that although the Constitution allows for rights to be limited under certain conditions, such limitation must meet strict constitutional tests. “What we need,” he said, “is principled partnership within constitutional boundaries.”
Calls for Investigation and Suspension
Echoing concerns raised by others representing the religious sector, another faith leader, Dr Shimmy Kotu, called the conduct of the CRL leadership constitutionally problematic. He called for the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry into allegations raised against the Commission’s leadership and recommended that the remaining CRL commissioners be invited to Parliament to clarify whether they are complicit in, or opposed to, the current process.
A Member of Parliament representing the African Christian Democratic Party, Mr Steve Swart, suggested that Parliament consider reviving the report of the previous portfolio committee that had dealt with similar matters and recommended engagement with the Portfolio Committee on Justice to examine potential gaps in the implementation of existing criminal laws.
A committee member, Mr Glen Taaibosch, acknowledged the seriousness of the concerns raised. “We can’t put a Band-Aid on this, and I can’t see that all these people are unhappy about nothing,” he said. Another member, Mr Saintes van Wyk, also expressed concern about allegations regarding public statements made by the CRL Chairperson and suggested that they may warrant further examination.
The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee, Dr Zweli Mkhize, explained that Wednesday’s meeting formed part of an ongoing process. He said the CRL Commission had been invited to attend but declined on the basis that these issues are currently before the courts. The committee will continue consultations with additional religious leaders and other stakeholders, including those who support the Section 22 process, before formulating recommendations. Dr Mkhize stressed that the committee is now consolidating the various objections and concerns raised and will determine appropriate next steps as part of its oversight role.
Alicestine October
12 February 2026
Arrange a tour