SACD challenges CRL Rights Commission over church governance issues

The South African Church Defenders (SACD) have officially initiated legal proceedings in the Gauteng High Court, claiming that the CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 Committee is overreaching its mandate and intruding into the governance of churches. This multifaceted dispute signals growing tensions between religious organisations and state oversight in South Africa.

Established to safeguard the cultural, religious, and linguistic rights enshrined in the South African Constitution, the CRL Rights Commission is a pivotal watchdog, especially concerning churches. The controversial Section 22 Committee, formed under this commission, aims to enhance accountability and mitigate potential abuses within religious organisations.

In December, the committee proposed a self-regulatory framework introducing mandatory registration and accreditation processes for churches. This included the introduction of a “Seal of Good Standing” and the establishment of an Independent Christian Practice Council responsible for reviewing and certifying organisations that adhere to certain ethical and governance standards.

However, the SACD argues that this framework transcends advisory roles, positioning itself as governmental interference in the internal dynamics of the church. In a statement, the organisation firmly declared, “This case is not about resisting accountability or protecting wrongdoing. It is about defending constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the fundamental right to freedom of religion.”

Critics within the SACD contend that the proposal infringes upon vital constitutional protections concerning freedom of religion, association, and collective rights. They argue that it disproportionately places churches under a microscope while other civil society groups remain unregulated.

The implementation of registration and accreditation could inadvertently lead to a culture where churches that do not comply are viewed as morally questionable, a framing that the SACD decries as misleading. “Where criminal conduct occurs, South African law already provides adequate remedies,” the statement added.

The SACD has also raised concerns regarding the potential ramifications for unity within Christian communities, expressing worry that such frameworks could create divisions by portraying pastors as separate from their congregants, or even labelling them as delinquents.

“We reject any attempt by the state to regulate spiritual callings or place itself above God,” the SACD asserted, emphasising that such matters transcend human authority. “While we fully respect the Constitution and the just enforcement of the rule of law, we are accountable to the Lord, not to political authorities, in matters of doctrine and calling.”

This legal battle underscores the delicate balance between governance and religious freedom in South Africa, with many watching closely as the court deliberates the implications of this case on the future of church oversight and spiritual autonomy in the nation.

IOS