CRL Commission responds to allegations of irregularities and 'state control' agenda

The CRL Rights Commission has called for an “urgent” press conference to address “several fabrications and lies” circulated about the commission and its Section 22 Committee and provide “the real facts”.

The commission said this in an invitation statement for the briefing set for Wednesday morning (January 21) at its Braampark offices in Braamfontein, Johannesburg.

The briefing follows the dramatic resignation of the former chairperson of the Section 22 Committee, Reverend Professor Musa Xulu, last week raising allegations of irregularities in the formation and operations of the committee, including “undue interference”, “toxic, exclusionary and intimidating process”, and the use of “racist remarks”.

Xulu said he could not continue heading the committee as it was being used “as a front to disguise a predetermined agenda of State control of religion, driven in part by personal hostility toward particular Christian faith and traditions”. 

Following the resignation, the South African Community of Faith-Based Fraternals and Federations (SACOFF) called for “full transparency” from the commission and a reset of engagement with the religious sector.

SACOFF made the call in a statement by its President, Pastor Bert Pretorius, saying that it had over the past months warned about allegations of procedural irregularities in the establishment and operations of the Section 22 Committee, a lack of transparency and clarity around its mandate, and undue interference undermining the committee’s independence, and a “growing drift from genuine self-regulation toward legislated control of religion by the state”.

Call for Independent Inquiry

Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) also made a call for transparency as well as an independent inquiry into the Section 22 Committee, including the role played by the commission’s chairperson Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, the suspension of the national consultation process on regulation, and the removal of implicated office bearers.

“Professor Xulu’s statement sets out a disturbing pattern, which, if even partly true, demonstrates a process that is fundamentally compromised. These include serious questions about whether the Section 22 Committee was lawfully and properly constituted; irregular and unexplained changes in membership; repeated interference by the CRL Chair in the calling, chairing, and direction of meetings; and the marginalisation of dissenting views. Most concerningly, they reveal a predetermined outcome — state regulation of religion — combined with an unwillingness to engage with alternative, lawful solutions or with dissenting voices,” FOR SA said in a statement.

The non-profit legal advocacy organisation said it rejected “racial scapegoating” and expressed grave concern about the allegations of “racist and defamatory remarks” made about it and its Executive Director, Michael Swain.

However, both FOR SA and SACOFF still expressed commitment to a lawful and fair process to find ways of dealing with criminality and abuse in the religious sector but expressed opposition to the imposition of state control, which is unconstitutional.

Recently, before Xulu's resignation, the South African Council of Churches (SACC) said it was engaging “with caution and openness” in the committee’s national consultation process.

The SACC, a national interdenominational federation of churches, said this after the committee published a “Draft Self-Regulatory Framework for the Christian Sector” as part of the consultation process.