Accountability Without Overreach: Why the CRL Commission Risks Undermining Religious Freedom

By Fr Mathibela Sebothoma 

The failure of parts of the Church to govern itself responsibly is no longer in dispute. Financial misconduct, abuse of authority, and weak internal accountability have rightly provoked public anger. These failures demand consequences. But they do not justify a solution that threatens a core constitutional freedom.

In its growing intervention into religious life, the Cultural, Religious and Linguistic (CRL) Rights Commission risks crossing an important line: from protecting citizens against abuse to policing belief itself.

A constitutional democracy must be able to hold religious institutions accountable without deciding what counts as a “legitimate” religion or how faith should be practised. When the state assumes that role, freedom of religion becomes conditional—granted only to those who pass official approval.

To be clear, churches are not above the law. When religious leaders commit fraud, exploit congregants, or endanger lives, the full force of criminal and civil law should apply. South Africa already has robust legal frameworks to deal with these abuses: financial regulation, child protection laws, labour law, and criminal prosecution. The problem has not been the absence of law, but inconsistent enforcement.

The CRL Commission’s expanding role appears less about enforcing existing laws and more about regulating religion as such—proposing registration requirements, doctrinal oversight, and state-sanctioned definitions of acceptable religious practice. This shift should concern anyone committed to constitutionalism, whether religious or not.

Freedom of religion is not a favour extended to faith communities; it is a right grounded in freedom of conscience, belief, and association. Once the state begins to judge religious legitimacy, that freedom is weakened for everyone. History—both global and local—shows that state control over belief systems rarely stops at its initial targets.

Today, the justification may be abusive churches. Tomorrow, it could be unpopular beliefs, minority faiths, or unconventional worldviews. The principle at stake is larger than the misconduct that triggered the debate.

Supporters of increased CRL intervention argue that self-regulation has failed—and in many cases, they are right. But regulatory failure does not automatically justify intrusive state control. A weak referee does not become stronger by rewriting the rules of the game; it becomes stronger by enforcing the rules that already exist.

There is also a danger of confusion between harm and offence. A constitutional democracy must prevent real harm—physical, financial, psychological—not police belief because it appears irrational, distasteful, or controversial. Once the state regulates religion based on perceived legitimacy rather than demonstrable harm, it moves from protecting rights to managing conscience.

This is not a call for religious exceptionalism. Religious organisations that operate schools, charities, or businesses should meet the same standards as their secular counterparts. Transparency, accountability, and compliance with the law are non-negotiable. But regulation must be function-based, not belief-based.

There are better alternatives to the current trajectory. Government can strengthen enforcement of existing laws, improve coordination between regulatory bodies, and support independent civil mechanisms that empower victims to report abuse. Parliament can clarify the limits of the CRL Commission’s mandate to ensure it protects cultural and religious rights rather than encroaching on them.

Accountability and freedom are not opposing values; they are democratic partners. When one is pursued at the expense of the other, both suffer. South Africa’s constitutional promise lies not in choosing between liberty and responsibility, but in holding them in careful balance.

Members of the CRL must avoid promoting their personal belief systems and attacking those whose beliefs they do not like. Not even politicians will succeed in doing so, as the Constitution reigns supreme in South Africa.

If religious freedom is to mean anything, it must protect not only respectable beliefs, but also unpopular ones. The true test of a constitutional democracy is not how it treats the mainstream, but how it restrains itself when regulation is politically tempting.