A prominent religious organization has filed court papers seeking to block a proposed regulatory framework for churches, arguing it constitutes unlawful state interference in religious affairs.
The South African Church Defenders (SACD) has taken the CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 Committee to the Gauteng High Court. The legal action claims the committee is overstepping its statutory mandate and infringing on church governance.
The contentious framework, proposed by the Commission, aims to establish guidelines for religious institutions. However, the SACD contends it moves far beyond an advisory role, creating a system of state intrusion into matters of faith.
In an interview, the Chairperson of the SACD elaborated on the organization’s opposition. “We are opposing the regulation of churches because that will be state interference in matters of religion, in matters of faith, which can be very, very dangerous,” the Chairperson stated. “Matters of faith do not fall under the domain of government. Religious callings, callings of pastors, that cannot be regulated by a human being.”
When confronted with documented cases of abuse within some churches—such as congregants being fed grass or staged resurrection scams—the Chairperson acknowledged problems exist but insisted existing laws are sufficient.
“It is true. There are abuses that do happen in churches. There is criminality that do happen in churches,” the Chairperson said. “If there is any criminality that is perpetuated by anybody who is in the church, let the law deal with those people… Crime is everywhere and crime should be dealt with by competent institutions.”
The Chairperson argued that the constitution protects diverse religious beliefs and practices, even those some may find “bizarre.” The solution, according to the SACD, is not new legislation but better education and self-regulation within the religious sector.
“The CRL is allowed to educate. They can educate people that if your pastor is doing this, know that this is not right,” the Chairperson suggested, adding that churches are “self-regulating” through internal fraternals and standards.
The interviewer pressed on the need for preventative measures to stop harm before it occurs, rather than reacting after “people have either suffered physical, mental, financial suffering.” The Chairperson remained firm, framing the issue as one of fundamental rights and equality.
“We cannot just introduce laws that are particular to Christians. Not in our country where there is supposed to be equality,” the Chairperson responded. “Freedoms are hard-won and they are fundamental rights which are not supposed to be violated.”
The Chairperson expressed concern that the framework uses the misconduct of a few to justify broad legislation that could silence or persecute religious communities. “We are rejecting the thing that now we are being labeled, we are being painted with the same brush… as an excuse to try to regulate, to silence the church.”
The case is set to proceed in the High Court, placing the balance between preventing harmful practices and protecting religious autonomy squarely before the judiciary.