SACD
1Min
South Africa
Dec 2, 2025
A coalition of South Africa’s charismatic and evangelical churches has challenged the CRL Rights Commission in court, arguing that its Section 22 oversight committee threatens constitutional freedom of religion. The churches maintain the move constitutes unlawful state interference in faith governance.
A coalition of charismatic, Pentecostal, and evangelical churches in South Africa has approached the High Court to block what they describe as an attempt to undermine religious freedom.
Their challenge targets the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL), which recently established a Section 22 oversight committee aimed at regulating church governance.
The churches, represented by South African Church Defenders (SACD), argue that the committee lacks the statutory authority to dictate doctrine, leadership, or internal governance. They contend that previous parliamentary reviews had rejected similar regulatory proposals and that the commission is overstepping its mandate.
In court documents, the churches assert that the Section 22 committee violates constitutional protections under Section 15 (freedom of religion) and Section 31 (the right of religious communities to self-organise). They stress that state interference in spiritual and doctrinal matters threatens the autonomy of faith communities.
The CRL maintains that the oversight mechanism is designed to promote accountability and curb abuse within religious organisations, particularly in response to financial exploitation and misconduct scandals. However, critics argue that the commission’s approach disproportionately targets charismatic and Pentecostal churches while encroaching on freedoms enjoyed by all faith groups.
Bodies such as the South African Union Council of Independent Churches (SAUCIC) have condemned the CRL’s actions and called for the removal of the commission’s chairperson. Supporters of the court challenge emphasise that issues like fraud or abuse should be addressed through existing civil and criminal law, not through sweeping regulatory powers over doctrine or worship practices.


















