As the CRL Rights Commission, through its Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee for the Christian Sector, advances a proposed self-regulatory framework for churches, the debate has shifted beyond misconduct and accountability to a deeper constitutional concern: what does this proposal mean for religious freedom in South Africa?
At the heart of the discussion is not whether abuse should be addressed. South African law already does that. The real question is whether the framework changes the long-standing boundary between state authority and religious autonomy.
Religious Freedom in the Constitution
South Africa’s Constitution deliberately protects religious freedom through Sections 15 and 31. These provisions guarantee:
• Freedom of religion, belief, and opinion
• The right of religious communities to practise and organise their religious affairs
This protection was designed to prevent the state from interfering in belief, worship, doctrine, and internal governance.
Crucially, these freedoms were never intended to shield criminal behaviour. Churches, like all institutions, are subject to criminal and civil law.
What the CRL Framework Introduces
The draft framework proposes:
• A sector-wide self-regulatory structure
• Certification or accreditation mechanisms
• Public seals of good standing
• Common ethical and governance benchmarks
While the CRL has described the framework as voluntary, its association with a Chapter 9 institution gives it a level of authority that can influence public legitimacy, donor confidence, and engagement with the state.
This is where religious freedom concerns arise.
Why “Voluntary” Does Not Always Mean Neutral
In practice, voluntary frameworks linked to the state can become:
• Informal gatekeepers of legitimacy
• Benchmarks for who is considered compliant
• Tools that pressure participation without formal enforcement
A church that chooses not to participate may not be breaking the law, but it could still be perceived as outside acceptable norms.
For many faith leaders, this creates a chilling effect on religious independence.
Enforcement Versus Oversight
Existing law already allows the state to intervene when harm occurs:
• Assault and abuse are criminal offences
• Financial exploitation is prosecuted under fraud statutes
• Child protection laws apply in all spaces, including churches
What the CRL proposal changes is not enforcement, but oversight of religious governance.
This shift raises an important question: does protecting religious rights include shaping how religions organise themselves?
Why This Matters Beyond the Church
The implications extend beyond Christianity.
If religious governance can be indirectly influenced through certification and compliance frameworks, similar models could be applied to other belief systems.
For constitutional scholars, this raises a red flag. Religious freedom is not simply the right to believe, but the right to practise and organise belief without state endorsement or approval.
A Defining Moment for Church and State
South Africa now stands at a crossroads.
One path strengthens law enforcement and protects victims without altering religious autonomy.
The other introduces oversight mechanisms that blur the line between rights protection and regulation.
How this debate is resolved will shape religious freedom in South Africa for generations.