As the CRL Rights Commission, through its Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee for the Christian Sector, launches a national consultation on a proposed self-regulatory framework for churches, many South Africans are asking a simple but critical question: do we really need new rules for churches, or do existing laws already cover abuse and exploitation?
The debate has been framed as one of accountability. But a closer look at South Africa’s legal landscape shows that the issue may not be a lack of laws, but how those laws are enforced.
This explainer breaks down what the law already regulates, what it deliberately does not regulate, and where the CRL proposal changes the relationship between church and state.
What the Law Already Covers
South African law already applies fully to churches, pastors, and religious organisations. There is no legal exemption for religious spaces.
Criminal conduct
When harm occurs in a church, it is prosecuted under ordinary criminal law. This includes:
• Assault and grievous bodily harm
• Sexual offences, including rape and exploitation
• Child abuse and neglect
• Intimidation and coercion
Courts have repeatedly ruled that religious belief or consent does not make harmful conduct lawful. The conviction of the so-called Doom pastor is one example where existing law was applied decisively.
Financial and organisational misconduct
Churches are also subject to:
• Fraud and theft legislation
• Tax compliance and SARS oversight
• Non-profit governance requirements where applicable
Religious status does not shield any institution from financial accountability.
Child protection
The Children’s Act and related legislation impose strict duties to protect minors and to report abuse. These obligations apply regardless of whether abuse occurs in a home, school, or church.
In practical terms, criminal law, civil law, and regulatory law already address abuse, exploitation, and misconduct in churches.
What the Law Does Not Cover
While the law addresses crimes, it intentionally does not regulate belief, doctrine, worship practices, or internal church governance.
This is not a gap. It is a constitutional safeguard.
The Constitution protects:
• Freedom of religion and belief
• The right of religious communities to organise and govern themselves
• Doctrinal diversity and theological autonomy
The state is not empowered to decide:
• Who qualifies as a legitimate pastor
• Which doctrines are acceptable
• How churches should structure leadership
• Which churches are spiritually or theologically in “good standing”
This boundary exists to prevent state interference in conscience and belief.
What the CRL Proposal Seeks to Add
The draft framework proposed by the Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee introduces elements that go beyond existing law, including:
• A sector-wide self-regulatory council
• Certification or accreditation mechanisms
• Public seals of good standing
• Standardised ethical and governance benchmarks
Although described as voluntary, such mechanisms can have real consequences. Once associated with a Chapter 9 institution, they can influence public legitimacy, donor confidence, and engagement with the state.
This is where concern begins.
Why the Distinction Matters
If abuse is already criminal, accountability belongs to:
• The police
• Prosecutors
• The courts
Introducing religious oversight structures risks reframing criminal conduct as a governance issue rather than a legal one. It also risks shifting responsibility away from the state’s duty to enforce the law.
More importantly, it raises a constitutional question: at what point does protecting rights become regulating religion?
Enforcement Versus Control
South Africa’s challenge has not been the absence of laws. It has been:
• Weak investigations
• Delayed prosecutions
• Fear of confronting powerful figures
• Uneven enforcement
None of these failures are resolved by regulating churches.
They are resolved by enforcing the law consistently and without fear or favour.
The Constitutional Line That Must Not Be Crossed
Religious freedom in South Africa was deliberately protected to prevent state involvement in belief and worship.
Churches must be accountable under the law.
Criminal conduct must be punished.
Victims must be protected.
But belief, worship, and spiritual governance must remain outside the reach of state-linked regulatory systems.
The Question South Africans Must Answer
The debate is no longer about whether abuse should be addressed. It already is.
The real question is whether the CRL Rights Commission is moving from its constitutional role of protecting religious rights into shaping how religious communities govern themselves.
That distinction will define the future relationship between church and state in South Africa.