Siphesihle Buthelezi 16 April 2025 The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission) announcement of a Section 22 committee to assess the state of churches has reignited the debate around regulating religion in South Africa. The Commission said its new report found abuse and a lack of accountability in the country’s Christian religious sector. The report is a continuation of its work on the commercialisation of religion, first undertaken in 2017.CRL deputy chairperson Prince George Mahlangu said this phase focuses on implementing the recommendations that emerged from those earlier hearings. Central to these efforts is the establishment of a Section 22 Committee, which will be led by Christian religious leaders and tasked with developing a peer review mechanism within the sector. The committee is expected to play a key role in pushing for legislative changes to enforce oversight. Mahlangu stressed that this initiative is not an attempt to control religion. “We want religious leaders to account some way, just like any other profession.” However, the move has sparked backlash from the religious freedom body Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA). Speaking in an interview with Link FM, FOR SA Executive Director Michael Swain described the CRL’s plans as a “serious and existential threat” to religious freedom. Swain argued that granting the state power to decide who qualifies as a religious leader or what constitutes a legitimate religious organisation would undermine a core democratic principle. He pointed to examples in other African countries such as Rwanda, Angola, Namibia, Uganda, and Kenya, where state regulation has led to sweeping restrictions on religious practice. In Rwanda, over 9 800 prayer houses were reportedly shut down last year. While the CRL has said its aim is to protect believers from criminals exploiting religion, Swain insisted that the real issue is the lack of enforcement of existing laws. “Criminals don’t hide behind religious freedom. If a person, pastor, politician, or police officer commits a crime, they must face the full force of the law. We already have the laws; what’s lacking is enforcement.” He also raised concerns that the oversight structure could itself become a source of corruption. “As soon as you introduce paid positions or influence into such a structure, you create new opportunities for corruption.” Swain rejected comparisons between religious leaders and regulated professionals like doctors or lawyers. “Faith is not like a profession where there’s a set body of knowledge or qualifications.” Reverend Ian Booth, Interim Co-ordinator of the Diakonia Council of Churches and General Secretary of the Greater Durban YMCA, expressed support for the idea of regulation, provided it is implemented carefully. “I do not have a problem with regulation of religious institutions through mandatory registration and licensing. There are too many examples of people being exploited by so-called pastors or religious leaders, and it seems some start churches as a means of gaining wealth, not serving people,” said Booth. He added that his denomination supports a model of self-regulation. “We have a constitution and an ethical code of conduct by which we hold ourselves accountable.”