Trust issues: The CRL Rights Commission’s Section 22 process, intended to promote ethical governance in religious communities, the Chairperson of the Commission, Mrs Thoko Mkhwanazi- Xaluva delivered a keynote address under the Sacred (Traditional) Spaces. Photo: CRL
Section 22 of the Cultural, Religious and Linguistic (CRL) Rights Commission Act empowers the commission to investigate problems within religious communities, foster ethical conduct and address inappropriate practices.
Between 2025 and the beginning of 2026, the controversy over section 22 of South Africa’s CRL Rights Commission escalated, exposing a chasm between the commission and various national religious organisations.
On the one hand, the CRL claims that its section 22 procedure is an attempt to promote ethical governance and prevent abuses in a way that complies with the Constitution.
However, several religious leaders, civil society organisations and legal specialists argue that procedural mistakes, insufficient consultation and signs of state overreach have tarnished the process.
The resignation of the section 22 committee chair, mass protests and multiple legal challenges have further fuelled concern about the initiative’s legitimacy and intentions.
Section 22 of the CRL Rights Commission Act gives the commission the authority to investigate issues facing religious communities and to propose appropriate interventions. As a chapter nine institution tasked with defending and advancing cultural, religious and linguistic rights, the CRL views this mission as part of its constitutional obligation.
Commission chairperson Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva has argued that the section 22 process is intended to foster ethical conduct within religious and linguistic communities and to address harmful practices seen in past scandals involving certain religious leaders.
The CRL maintains that its approach is consultative, voluntary and geared towards strengthening internal self-regulation rather than imposing direct state control. This is presented as part of its broader effort to restore trust in the sector and protect congregants from abuse.
Despite the CRL’s stated intentions, there have been several criticisms of the section 22 process. Major religious organisations argue that the CRL’s public messaging is at odds with its internal documentation.
The South African Church Defenders (SACD) notes, for example, that while the CRL publicly denies pursuing legislation, clause 2.3 of its own draft framework explicitly calls for the development of a legislative framework for the Christian sector.
This contradiction has deepened mistrust between the CRL and religious communities. Additionally, key Christian bodies, such as the Apostolic Faith Mission and the Assemblies of God, rejected claims that they were adequately represented in the process.
Hindu and Muslim bodies have echoed these concerns. The South African Hindu Maha Sabha (SAHMS) criticised the CRL for announcing the formation of a section 22 structure for the Hindu sector without any prior consultation, undermining both legitimacy and transparency.
The Hindu faith sector was neither notified nor invited to comment on section 22, whereas the Christian sector was consulted. The South African Muslim Network similarly questioned the constitutionality of the process, raising alarm about selective engagement and exclusionary decision-making.
A major turning point in the section 22 controversy came with the sudden resignation of Reverend Professor Musa Xulu, the chairperson of the section 22 committee, in January 2026.
Xulu announced that he could “no longer serve as chair of a committee the processes of which I do not control, the outcomes of which I do not endorse”, alleging that the committee was being used to advance a “predetermined agenda of state control of religion”.
Professor Xulu stated that section 22 meetings were frequently chaired by the CRL chairperson rather than by himself. In addition, the proposed Christian sector framework was pushed through quickly without his endorsement or sufficient consultation.
Furthermore, he argued that important Christian constituencies had been excluded and that the draft framework was “not fit for purpose”, lacking theological grounding and raising constitutional concerns.
He emphasised that remaining in the role would compromise his integrity as both an academic and an ordained minister and he described the working environment as increasingly “toxic” and “hostile”.
The section 22 process has continued despite two high court challenges from SACD and the Muslim Lawyers Association, both arguing that the section 22 committee was unlawfully established.
Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) has warned that the CRL appears to be accelerating the process, potentially to conclude it before courts can rule, which raises serious due process concerns.
Parliament received several “formal submissions, memoranda and representations from faith-based organisations … regarding the constitutionality, inclusivity and conduct surrounding the establishment of the section 22 committee”.
The government was concerned about the growing tensions between religious stakeholders and the CRL Rights Commission.
The speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, reiterated that “the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa unequivocally guarantees freedom of religion, belief and opinion, while also affirming the responsibility of the state to protect all citizens from harm, including abuse that may occur within any sector of society.”
The speaker requested that the portfolio committee on cooperative governance and traditional affairs engage with all parties, including the CRL and faith-based organisations, to restore confidence, promote
inclusivity and ensure that all institutions operate within their constitutional mandates.
Given the reach and influence of the churches (83% of South Africans are actively Christian), there was widespread public mobilisation against the CRL’s recommendations.
Thousands of Christians marched in Durban and other cities, protesting what they perceived as creeping state intervention.
Those leading the protests emphasised that although accountability for any criminal act is essential, the CRL’s proposals could undermine the constitutional right to freedom of religion by encroaching on church governance and doctrine.
A balanced assessment acknowledges that the CRL’s goals — protecting congregants, promoting ethical leadership and addressing harmful practices — are legitimate public interests in a constitutional democracy.
However, the section 22 process has been hampered by procedural irregularities, transparency issues, inconsistent communication and perceptions of hostility towards certain religious traditions.
A major issue is that the proposed structures may shift from self-regulation to quasi-state regulation, reinforced by the revelations by Reverend Professor Musa Xulu.
To restore confidence and trust, the CRL should consider halting section 22 processes pending judicial outcomes.
Perhaps most importantly, what is needed is the inclusion of all faiths in one consultative committee, so that the various religious organisations in South Africa can unite and build the much-needed integration in society.
Faith groups can play a powerful role in shaping South African society, whether through disaster relief, welfare support, prayer to give hope or guiding communities to live according to ethical values and to support society in upholding the rule of law.
Separate section 22 committees for different faiths keep each religion in separate silos, echoing apartheid-era divisions; this risks fragmenting the South African faith community and minority faiths may become further marginalised.
Professor Brij Maharaj is the deputy president of the South African Hindu Maha Sabha