Why the CRL’s Draft Self-Regulatory Framework Is Tantamount to State Regulation of Religion

South Africa is quietly approaching a constitutional crossroads. Under the banner of “self-regulation,” a state-driven process is attempting to redraw the boundaries between church and state, not through legislation, but through committees, councils, and compliance mechanisms. At the centre of this unfolding dispute is the CRL Rights Commission’s Draft Christian Sector Self-Regulatory Framework, a document that claims to protect religious freedom while simultaneously placing the life, leadership, and legitimacy of churches under state-influenced oversight.

For the South African Church Defenders (SACD), this is not reform — it is the slow normalisation of state regulation of religion.

CRL Rights Commission’s Draft Christian Sector Self-Regulatory Framework raises serious constitutional, legal, and moral concerns. Despite its stated intention to promote accountability, the framework is tantamount to state regulation of religion, both in design and in effect.

This article explains why.

1. Self-regulation cannot be imposed by the state

True self-regulation arises voluntarily from within a religious community. It is organic, faith-driven, and accountable to believers, not to the state.

The CRL framework, however, is:

• Initiated by a Chapter 9 institution

• Developed through a Section 22 Committee created by statute

• Intended for presentation to Parliament

• Anchored within a government-led process

When self-regulation is conceived, structured, and enforced under the authority of a state institution, it ceases to be voluntary. It becomes state-directed regulation, regardless of the language used to describe it.

Calling such a framework “self-regulation” does not change its legal nature.

2. The proposed Christian Practice Council functions as a religious regulator

The Draft Framework proposes the establishment of a Christian Practice Council for Ethics and Accountability (CPCEA). This body would have powers to:

• Maintain a national public register of churches

• Investigate complaints against churches and leaders

• Issue sanctions

• Withdraw certification

• Publicly notify non-compliance

• Deregister institutions deemed non-compliant

  
  

These are regulatory powers, not pastoral or fraternal ones.

South Africa does not license religion. Churches are not professions. Faith is not a regulated activity under constitutional law. Creating a national oversight body with sanctioning powers effectively turns religion into a regulated sector, similar to medicine or law, a move wholly incompatible with constitutional protections.

3. “Voluntary” compliance becomes compulsory in practice

The framework relies on indirect coercion.

Churches that do not submit to the framework risk:

• Being labelled unethical or unsafe

• Losing public trust through the absence of a “Seal of Good Standing”

• Being excluded by donors, venues, banks, and municipalities

• Suffering reputational damage through public non-compliance notices

This creates a situation where churches are forced to comply to survive, even if participation is formally described as optional.

Constitutional law recognises this as constructive compulsion, regulation by pressure rather than by statute.

4. The framework interferes with who may lead and establish churches

The Draft Framework goes beyond addressing criminal conduct and enters the realm of religious governance by prescribing:

• Governance structures

• Leadership composition requirements

• Conditions on churches founded by foreign nationals

• Mandatory constitutions aligned to prescribed norms

• 
  

These provisions interfere directly with the internal affairs of religious communities, violating the long-established principle that the state may regulate conduct, but not religious organisation or doctrine.

Who leads a church, how leadership is structured, and how authority is exercised are matters of theological conviction, not state policy.

5. Existing laws already address abuse and criminality

South Africa already has robust legal mechanisms to deal with:

• Fraud

• Sexual abuse

• Child exploitation

• Financial crimes

• Immigration violations

• Labour abuses

These are addressed through:

• Criminal law

• SARS and financial regulators

• Child protection statutes

• Labour legislation

• Immigration law

There is no constitutional justification for creating a religion-specific regulatory framework when general law already applies equally to all citizens, including religious leaders.

Targeting religion for special oversight violates the principle of state neutrality.

6. The state cannot define religious legitimacy

Once a state-mandated body determines which churches are “ethical,” “compliant,” or “in good standing,” the state has crossed a constitutional line.

Even indirectly, the state may not:

• Determine acceptable religious practice

• Rank churches according to compliance

• Grant or withdraw legitimacy

This authority belongs only to faith communities themselves.

7. A dangerous precedent for all faiths

If this framework is allowed to stand:

• Other religions will inevitably follow

• Religious freedom becomes conditional

• Faith communities shift from constitutional rights to administrative approval

History shows that soft regulation often becomes hard control.

South Africa’s painful past demands vigilance against any system — however well-intended, that places belief under state supervision.