Religious freedom is not a licence to defraud, assault or exploit anyone. Yet protecting congregants does not require the State to supervise lawful belief. South Africa can confront abuse firmly without giving a public body influence over who may preach, worship or form a religious community.

What the Constitution protects

The Constitution protects religion at several levels. Section 15 guarantees everyone freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion. Section 18 protects freedom of association. Section 31 protects the right of people, together with others, to practise their religion and to form, join and maintain religious associations.

These rights are powerful, but not absolute. Section 31 says they may not be exercised inconsistently with the Bill of Rights. Harmful conduct does not become lawful because it occurs in a church, mosque, temple or home. At the same time, section 36 requires any limit on religious freedom to be reasonable and justifiable and asks whether less restrictive means could achieve the purpose.

The CRL Rights Commission, chaired by Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, was created as a Chapter Nine Institution with the constitutional mandate to promote and protect these very freedoms. It must therefore protect vulnerable congregants while remaining primarily a guardian, rather than a manager, of religious life.

Why the call for more state control has returned

The concern about abuse is real. The Commission’s 2017 investigation recorded financial exploitation, poor governance, tax and immigration concerns, and dangerous practices such as making congregants eat grass or drink petrol. It proposed a system in which religious practitioners and worship centres would be registered and linked to umbrella organisations and peer-review structures.

However, Parliament took a more restrained view in 2018. Its report found that enough laws already existed to address prevailing abuses, although loopholes and weak enforcement remained. It supported a sector-created charter and code of conduct, alongside targeted improvements to nonprofit and tax legislation.

The issue nonetheless returned in April 2025 when the Commission established a Section 22 Committee for the Christian sector. The Commission’s current website describes the draft framework as voluntary, Christian-led and involving no state licensing. That assurance matters. However, the Commission’s own April 2025 mandate also instructed the Committee to recommend a “legal and/or legislated framework” for peer review. Against the history of proposed registration, faith communities are entitled to ask where voluntary ethics ends and compulsory control begins.

Why more state control is the wrong cure

A voluntary code can promote sound governance, financial transparency and safeguarding. A compulsory system is very different. If registration, accreditation or a state-backed seal becomes the price of preaching or operating, a constitutional freedom becomes dependent on official approval. Smaller and informal communities could carry the greatest burden, while officials could be drawn into judging religious practice rather than unlawful conduct.

Section 22 of the CRL Rights Commission Act of 2002 permits the Commission to create committees to assist with its existing functions. It does not itself create a power to license religious practice. Any future law imposing compulsory controls would have to pass section 36. Government would need to show that the measure is proportionate and that effective, less restrictive measures will not work.

Enforce the law we already have

The first answer is better enforcement of laws that already exist. Police and prosecutors must act on credible complaints of assault, sexual offences, child abuse and fraud. SARS and the Department of Social Development must enforce the duties attached to tax-exempt and registered nonprofit status. Where a precise legal gap is proved, Parliament should close that gap narrowly.

Before proposing a new regulator, government should publish an enforcement audit: how many complaints were investigated, how many prosecutions followed, which tax or nonprofit breaches were acted on, and which cases failed because no law applied. Enforcement failure must not be mistaken for an absence of law.

Religious communities must also strengthen voluntary accountability: proper financial controls, safeguarding rules, independent complaints channels and ethical standards developed by the sector itself. Participation must remain genuinely voluntary, without legal penalty or practical disadvantage for staying outside the system.

On 4 August 2026, Dr Zweli Mkhize, chairperson of Parliament’s COGTA Committee, drew the line: the religious sector must lead the substance of any ethical code, not the Commission. That approach protects congregants without turning the watchdog into the regulator. South Africa should punish abuse, close proven loopholes and demand accountable institutions – but it should not place lawful belief under state supervision.

The FW de Klerk Foundation will examine these questions when it launches its Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights Report Card in Cape Town on 16 September 2026. Religious freedom deserves vigilance, not state control.

For more on this topic read: Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights Report Cards by the FW de Klerk Foundation – https://fwdeklerk.org/cultural-religious-and-language-rights-report-card/