The Most Damning Allegations Against the CRL Rights Commission Chairperson

As Revealed by Prof. Musa Xulu in His Resignation from the Section 22 Committee

The resignation of Prof. Musa Xulu, former Chair of the CRL Section 22 Committee, exposes a series of grave allegations against the Chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission, Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva. These allegations raise profound constitutional, ethical, and governance concerns about the conduct of a Chapter 9 institution.

What follows is a factual summary of the most serious accusations, as stated by Prof. Xulu himself.

1. The Section 22 Committee May Have Been Illegally Constituted

Prof. Xulu states that he does not know whether the Section 22 Committee was ever lawfully constituted through a formal resolution of the Commission. This raises the possibility that the entire process lacked a proper legal foundation from the outset.

“To this day, I do not know whether the Section 22 Committee was properly constituted by a formal resolution of the Commission.”

2. The Chairperson Exercised Total Control Despite Appointing a ‘Chair’

Although Prof. Xulu was formally appointed as Chair, he alleges that:

• He never called meetings

• He never controlled agendas

• He never presided independently

• He never exercised real authority

Instead, the CRL Chairperson allegedly chaired most meetings herself, controlled the secretariat, and directed outcomes.

“My leadership role was hollow.”

This directly contradicts public claims that the process was independent.

3. Undue Interference and Manipulation of Committee Membership

Prof. Xulu alleges that committee members were:

• Selected or co-opted by the CRL Chairperson

• Introduced into meetings without explanation or consultation

• Aligned with a small inner circle advancing a regulatory agenda

This undermines both procedural fairness and representative legitimacy.

4. A Toxic, Intimidating, and Exclusionary Process

According to Prof. Xulu, the process descended into:

• Intimidation of dissenting members

• Marginalisation of critics

• Hostility toward Pentecostal and Charismatic churches

Most alarming, he reports discussions about:

• Excluding “disruptive elements”

• Invitation-only consultations

• Involving SAPS, including references to force and teargas, to suppress opposition

“This is not consultation. This is intimidation.”

5. False Claims of Representing ‘45 Million Christians’

Prof. Xulu explicitly rejects the CRL Chairperson’s repeated claim that the committee represented 45 million Christians, stating this claim is factually unsustainable.

He confirms that:

• Major denominations repudiated the process

• The SACC was not formally part of the committee

• Charismatic Christians were treated as enemies

This amounts to a serious misrepresentation to the public.

6. Changing Terms of Reference Without Disclosure

Prof. Xulu alleges that the committee’s terms of reference were:

• Changed repeatedly

• Altered without notice

• Even replaced moments before public presentations

This conduct, he states, was embarrassing and dishonest, and compromised transparency.

7. Racist and Defamatory Language Used Against Critics

One of the most serious allegations is that the CRL Chairperson used racist and defamatory language in meetings, including describing a religious freedom advocate as:

“The white man from England who came to South Africa in 1983 to enjoy apartheid.”

Prof. Xulu states this language directly contradicts the Constitution and the mandate of a Chapter 9 institution.

8. Abuse of State Power and Personal Vendettas

Prof. Xulu alleges that the CRL Chairperson:

• Laid criminal charges against a critic

• Claimed to be exerting pressure on SAPS and the NPA

• Expressed a desire to see the individual imprisoned

If true, these allegations point to a dangerous abuse of state power for personal or political ends.

9. Release of a ‘Final Draft’ Without Approval

The so-called “Final Draft Christian Sector Self-Regulatory Framework” was allegedly:

• Released without approval of the full committee

• Released without approval of the appointed chair

• Issued despite clear warnings that it was unconstitutional and theologically unsound

Prof. Xulu states he was excluded, sidelined, and unable to account for a document publicly attributed to him.

10. Using the Committee as a Front for State Control of Religion

The most far-reaching allegation is Prof. Xulu’s conclusion that the Section 22 Committee was used to disguise a predetermined agenda:

“A front to disguise a predetermined agenda of State control of religion.”

This, he states, violated his conscience, his faith, and the Constitution — leaving him no choice but to resign.

A Moment of Reckoning

The South African Church Defenders (SACD) views the resignation of Prof. Musa Xulu as a defining moment in the ongoing struggle to protect religious freedom, constitutional order, and the independence of the Church in South Africa.

For months, SACD has consistently warned that the Section 22 process was not a neutral exercise in consultation, but a mechanism moving steadily toward state control of religion.

Prof. Xulu’s resignation — and the serious allegations he has placed on record — now lend significant weight to those concerns.

As a national Christian advocacy movement, SACD affirms that:

• The Church does not exist at the pleasure of the State

• Religious freedom is not subject to regulatory permission

• Chapter 9 institutions are bound by the Constitution, not personal agendas

SACD therefore reiterates its call for:

• The immediate dissolution of the Section 22 Committee

• Full public accountability from the CRL Rights Commission

• A firm recommitment to Section 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion

The Church in South Africa has governed itself for over two millennia through Scripture, doctrine, accountability, and discipline. Any attempt to replace this with state oversight represents not reform, but regression.

SACD calls on church leaders, civil society, legal bodies, and Parliament to treat these revelations with the seriousness they deserve. Silence at this moment would amount to consent.

Findings and Implications

The allegations raised by Prof. Musa Xulu are extraordinary in their seriousness. They implicate:

• Procedural illegality

• Abuse of power

• Intimidation

• Misrepresentation

• Racism

• Threats to constitutional religious freedom

These claims demand urgent, independent scrutiny.

For the Church, for civil society, and for South Africa’s constitutional democracy, this resignation cannot be ignored.