Religious Freedom Archives - MDNtv

A Warm and Honest Chat with President Cyril Ramaphosa and ANC Leaders

Hlakaniphile Magadlela — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 06:47:31 +0000

Today was a really special day. Pastor Mukhuba, together with Prof. Mukhuba, sat down with President Cyril Ramaphosa and the senior leadership of the African National Congress at Luthuli House.

We went in to speak openly about what’s weighing on the hearts of Christians across South Africa – especially the need to protect our religious freedom and keep our churches safe. What touched us most was how willing they were to listen. They didn’t just hear us out; they engaged with real care on issues that matter deeply to every believer.

Our commitment hasn’t changed one bit: we will keep standing up for Christian rights and making sure the voice of the church is heard loud and clear in our nation. Churches will never be regulated during our time – that’s a promise we intend to keep.

We left feeling hopeful and are already looking forward to more honest conversations like this. Because when faith, freedom, and good leadership walk together, South Africa wins.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post A Warm and Honest Chat with President Cyril Ramaphosa and ANC Leaders appeared first on MDNtv.

Pastor Mukhuba says Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva should be removed as chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission, arguing she is not impartial and unfit to lead a Chapter 9 institution

Sam Thangwane — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 18:05:50 +0000

https://mdntvlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/i_720p_20260313_171544.mp4

She says the proposed regulation of churches could criminalise pastors and lead to church closures, warning it may create restrictions similar to those in Rwanda and Angola.

Pastor Mukhuba, speaking at a large march currently underway in Durban organised by the South African Church Defenders (SACD), says the CRL Rights Commission, led by Thoko Mkhwanazi‑Xaluva, is pushing for measures that would regulate how churches operate.

https://mdntvlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/i_720p_20260313_190928.mp4

She argues that such legislation could infringe on constitutional rights, including freedom of religion, worship, expression, and association, and said the commission is overstepping its mandate to protect these rights.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Pastor Mukhuba says Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva should be removed as chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission, arguing she is not impartial and unfit to lead a Chapter 9 institution appeared first on MDNtv.

Reverend Kenneth Meshoe says Christians must be free to preach what they believe the Bible teaches without government interference

Sam Thangwane — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 17:39:55 +0000

https://mdntvlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/i_720p_20260313_175330.mp4

Speaking at the march, the African Christian Democratic Party leader says the church must retain the right to preach its beliefs, including its views on issues such as same-sex marriage, without the CRL Rights Commission restricting what pastors can say.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Reverend Kenneth Meshoe says Christians must be free to preach what they believe the Bible teaches without government interference appeared first on MDNtv.

Thousands of Christians March in Durban to Defend Religious Freedom

Sam Thangwane — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:42:54 +0000

Thousands of Christians from across KwaZulu‑Natal and beyond are marching through the streets of Durban today in a major demonstration for religious freedom and against proposed regulatory measures affecting churches.

Organised by the South African Church Defenders (SACD), the march began this morning from King Dinuzulu Park and is making its way toward City Hall.

Participants, representing a range of denominations, say they are exercising their constitutional right to worship freely and are opposed to moves they see as state overreach into church affairs.

The protest comes amid a heated national debate over the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Commission) and its establishment of a Section 22 Committee that some church leaders claim could lead to government regulation of religious organisations potentially affecting how churches operate internally.

Critics argue the committee undermines religious autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution’s protections for freedom of religion.

Organisers insist the march is peaceful and lawful, with a memorandum to be handed over to the eThekwini Mayor’s office calling for clarity on regulatory proposals and respect for constitutional rights. They also reaffirm that existing laws should handle criminal conduct in religious spaces without creating new bureaucratic oversight.

Earlier engagements between religious leaders and Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs highlighted the importance of protecting both religious freedom and congregants from abuse but left some issues unresolved, fuelling today’s mobilisation.

City traffic has been affected in central Durban as marchers fill the streets with banners and chants defending freedom of worship. Police are on the scene to ensure public safety, and organisers have urged participants to remain peaceful throughout the event.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Thousands of Christians March in Durban to Defend Religious Freedom appeared first on MDNtv.

CRL Rights Commission Breaks Silence After Musa Xulu Resignation

MDNtv — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:36:46 +0000

The CRL Rights Commission briefs the media in Braamfontein on the status and key developments of the Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee for the Christian Sector.

This briefing follows the resignation of Professor Rev Musa Xulu, raising serious public interest around the future of the committee, its findings, and the Commission’s constitutional mandate.

The Commission outlines significant matters arising from the committee’s work, ongoing programmes, and the way forward after recent leadership changes. Transparency, accountability, and governance within the Christian religious sector remain central to this update.

Stay informed with uninterrupted coverage and analysis.

Join MDNtv Membership to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClWk6DQBYHf6rLP8VtMn0Xw/join

Stay Connected With Us.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mdntvlive
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdntv.live
Twitter (X): https://twitter.com/mdnnewss
Website: http://www.mdntvlive.com/

For business inquiries: media@mdntvlive.com

=============================

CRL Section 22 Chair Resigns | “I Could Not Continue” – State & Church Tensions Explained

MDNtv — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:47:38 +0000

Former Section 22 Committee Chair Reverend Professor Musa Kulu has resigned from the CRL Rights Commission process, citing serious concerns over governance, transparency, and interference in the committee’s work.

In a detailed media briefing, Prof Kulu outlined why he could no longer continue in his role, warning of shifting mandates, procedural irregularities, and growing tensions around proposals affecting the Christian church in South Africa.

Church leaders and faith-based organisations responded by reiterating their opposition to any form of state regulation of religion, while emphasising that criminal behaviour must be addressed through existing laws.

This development adds new momentum to the national debate on religious freedom, constitutional rights, and the role of Chapter 9 institutions.

Watch the full briefing and analysis.

Visit here to stay informed with breaking news and in-depth coverage on MDNtv, your source for local and global stories: http://www.mdntvlive.com/

Support MDNtv on GlobalGiving:
Build the MDNtv Academy of Truth & Empowerment: https://goto.gg/72640
Help MDNtv Fight for GBV Survivors’ Justice: https://goto.gg/72638

𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClWk6DQBYHf6rLP8VtMn0Xw?sub_confirmation=1

Important Link to Follow

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClWk6DQBYHf6rLP8VtMn0Xw/join

Stay Connected With Us.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mdntvlive
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdntv.live
Twitter (X): https://twitter.com/mdnnewss
Website: http://www.mdntvlive.com/

For business inquiries: media@mdntvlive.com

=============================

Battle for Soul of the Church: SACD Tests Clout Against CRL Rights Commission

Hlakaniphile Magadlela — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 10:02:47 +0000

All eyes are set on the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, where legal salvos are certainly going to lift off the launch pad. The South African Church Defenders (SACD) will roll up its sleeves in the determined fight to tell the State where her role as constitutional enforcers end. It also intends to draw a line for the government, through the CRL Rights Section 22 Committee where to step back else it will be infringing on the territory of the divine which the church represents – a tall order indeed.

All these are likely to be set in motion as soon as the court returns from the 2025 year end recess early to mid January 2026.

While the church thinks that the State wants to raise instruments with which to ‘control the church through the back door’, the State believe there must be a standard which church actors must maintain like other professionals – lawyers, doctors and the like. This, it claims, would keep people in line and protect the vulnerable in society.

The Heart of the Dispute

With the looming legal duel, South Africa is in the midst of a serious constitutional showdown, one that places religious independence face-to-face with the state’s responsibility to shield citizens from harm. On one side stands the SACD, a coalition of churches and faith leaders. On the other is the CRL Rights Commission. The clash has landed in the Gauteng High Court, where the SACD is challenging the Commission’s Section 22 Committee and its proposed Draft Christian Sector Self-Regulatory Framework, which the coalition says amounts to unlawful state intrusion into religious life.

The CRL Rights Commission is a constitutionally established body tasked with safeguarding cultural, religious, and linguistic rights. Its decision to form the Section 22 Committee and propose a regulatory framework emerged after years of public concern about a small number of churches implicated in highly publicized cases of abuse, exploitation, and harmful practices. According to the Commission, the aim is simple: accountability, protection of the public, and the restoration of trust.

To the SACD and its supporters, however, the initiative represents something far more troubling. They see it not as protection, but as an expansion of state power that cuts directly into the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. In their view, the Commission has moved beyond its advisory role and is attempting to impose a bureaucratic system that effectively places churches under state control.

Ask the church how she sees the action and consequences, fingers would be pointing to the stepping up of anti-Christ activities, a mark of end-time activities against the church in which persecution steadily increases until Christ the Savior returns as the Bible explains.

SACD’s Case Before the Court

In November 2025, the SACD filed a detailed application with the Gauteng High Court. The case does not deny that criminal conduct should be confronted wherever it occurs. Instead, it challenges the authority of the Commission to regulate religious institutions in the manner proposed.

Their legal arguments rest on several key points:

Constitutional Violations: The SACD argues that the framework infringes on Section 15 (freedom of religion), Section 18 (freedom of association), and Section 31 (rights of cultural, religious, and linguistic communities) of the Constitution. They maintain that churches are being singled out for a level of oversight not imposed on other civil society organizations.

Procedural Overreach – Central to the case is the claim that the Section 22 Committee was unlawfully established. According to court papers, the committee was formed by the CRL Chairperson without a formal resolution of the full Commission, rendering its actions invalid. The SACD also accuses the Commission of mischaracterizing Parliament’s rejection of similar regulatory proposals in 2018.

The SACD also contends that the process has disproportionately focused on Christian churches particularly Charismatic and Pentecostal movements while excluding other faith traditions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. They further point to the inclusion of “the mushrooming of charismatic churches” in South Africa’s 2024–2028 National Security Strategy as evidence of a prejudicial narrative shaping official policy.

Through the court, the SACD is seeking a declaration that the Section 22 Committee is unlawful, that all its work be set aside, and that the state be prohibited from regulating church doctrine or internal governance.

Regulation Versus Autonomy

At its core, the dispute reflects two fundamentally different visions of how ethical conduct within religious spaces should be ensured.

The CRL Commission’s Proposal

The Draft Self-Regulatory Framework outlines a formal structure for the Christian sector that includes:

Mandatory Registration and Accreditation that Churches would be required to register and meet standards facilitated by the state. However, one of the sorest points is issue of the “Seal of Good Standing”which is a Certification for compliant churches, and as far as SACD is concerned, this is repugnant as it fears this could sideline or stigmatize those without it.

An Independent Christian Practice Council: A new body tasked with reviewing and certifying churches based on ethics and governance is being planned.

Future Mandatory Compliance: Although initially framed as voluntary, the CRL Chairperson has indicated that compliance is expected to become compulsory for all churches operating in South Africa.

The SACD’s Response: Independence and Existing Law

The SACD rejects the framework outright, arguing instead for an approach grounded in two principles:

Religious Autonomy: They maintain that calling, doctrine, and church governance fall within the realm of conscience and accountability to God and congregants not the state. In their view, faith cannot be licensed, and the government cannot position itself above spiritual authority.

Use of Existing Laws, which the SACD insists that crimes such as fraud, abuse, and exploitation are already covered by South Africa’s criminal justice system. These offenses, they argue, should be prosecuted through established legal channels rather than through a separate regulatory regime that blurs the line between criminal accountability and spiritual oversight.

Why This Case Matters

Constitutional democracy with reference to the church is on trial and this dispute goes far beyond policy details; it raises fundamental questions about the nature of freedom in this setting.

The court’s ruling will help define the boundary between the state’s duty to prevent harm and the constitutional protection of religious independence. It will shape how South Africa balances freedom and regulation in the years ahead. It is a case under intense watch all over the world and promises to be quite interesting.

Here are implications for all faith communities: while the current framework targets the Christian sector, its success could pave the way for similar oversight across all religious traditions.

However, the case has sparked intense public discussion around power, trust, and accountability. Some see the Commission’s actions as part of a wider global shift toward state control of religious expression, while others argue that stronger oversight is essential to protect vulnerable people from abuse.

South Africa At Crossroads

The confrontation between the SACD and the CRL Rights Commission marks a defining moment in South Africa’s democratic journey. It forces the nation to confront a difficult but vital question: how can society enforce the rule of law and protect citizens from harm without encroaching on the sacred, constitutionally protected space of faith and worship? While the Church is wont to watch over errant ministers, which she agrees should be subject to the existing criminal justice system, the end time events such as increasing challenges and persecution against her is building up, all be it subtly. She should prepare for ‘war’.

For the SACD, this is a stand in defense of the Constitution against bureaucratic overreach. For the CRL Commission, it is a necessary intervention to safeguard the public from unchecked abuse.

As the Gauteng High Court prepares to hear the matter, its decision will do more than settle a legal dispute. It will either reaffirm or redraw the delicate boundary between church and state shaping South Africa’s understanding of religious freedom for generations to come.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Battle for Soul of the Church: SACD Tests Clout Against CRL Rights Commission appeared first on MDNtv.

Church Defenders Clarify Court Case and Accuse CRL of Fueling Division

Hlakaniphile Magadlela — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:51:03 +0000

South African Church Defenders (SACD) have moved to clarify the scope of their legal challenge against the CRL Rights Commission, accusing the commission of misrepresenting the nature of the court case and deepening divisions within religious communities.

Addressing the media, SACD leaders rejected claims that their court action seeks to prevent different faith groups from meeting or being represented together. They said such assertions are misleading and are not reflected in their legal papers.

According to SACD, the court application is narrowly focused on three key issues. The organisation is seeking a declaration that the Section 22 Committee established by the CRL was unlawful, that all actions taken by the committee are invalid, and that the committee must be disbanded. These demands, they said, have already been submitted to Parliament and included in a memorandum to the Presidency.

SACD also confirmed that it is challenging the CRL’s communication with state security structures that reportedly labelled charismatic churches as a domestic threat. The organisation argues that this characterisation has contributed to suspicion, fear, and unnecessary tension among religious communities.

At the centre of the case, SACD said, is the protection of constitutional rights guaranteed under Sections 15, 18, and 31 of the Constitution, which safeguard freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the collective rights of religious communities.

Church leaders warned that recent statements and actions by the CRL risk reviving divisions and disruptions seen in previous years, raising concerns about possible witch hunts against pastors. They questioned why alleged victims are not being referred to existing investigative and justice structures if credible information already exists.

SACD also raised concerns about the potential cost and scope of expanding Section 22 committees across multiple faith groups, arguing that such an approach could place an unnecessary burden on public resources while failing to address genuine cases of criminal conduct.

The organisation stressed that it does not oppose accountability or justice, but insists that criminal matters should be handled by established law enforcement and judicial bodies rather than through broad regulatory measures targeting religious communities.

In closing, South African Church Defenders said they will continue to pursue both legal action and peaceful protest to oppose what they describe as unconstitutional overreach. The group reaffirmed its commitment to defending religious freedom and called on believers across the country to remain informed, united, and engaged.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Church Defenders Clarify Court Case and Accuse CRL of Fueling Division appeared first on MDNtv.

SA Church Defenders Take CRL Rights Commission to Court Over Church Regulation Plan

Hlakaniphile Magadlela — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:41:09 +0000

The South African Church Defenders (SACD) have launched a high stakes legal challenge against the CRL Rights Commission, warning that the commission’s proposed self regulatory framework for churches threatens constitutional freedoms and opens the door to state control of religion.

Speaking at a media briefing, SACD leaders confirmed that they have filed papers in the Gauteng High Court, where they are seeking urgent relief against what they describe as unlawful and unconstitutional actions by the commission.

Legal Challenge Explained

SACD says its court case is not about avoiding accountability or protecting wrongdoing within churches. Instead, the organisation argues that it is acting to defend constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the fundamental right to freedom of religion.

At the centre of the dispute is a Section 22 Committee established by the CRL Rights Commission. SACD is asking the court to declare that the creation of this committee was unlawful, that all its actions are invalid, and that it must be disbanded.

The organisation is also challenging the CRL’s communication with state security structures, which allegedly labelled charismatic churches as a domestic threat. SACD says this claim is false, reckless, and has caused unnecessary fear and division within religious communities.

Constitutional Rights at Stake

According to SACD, the draft framework violates multiple sections of the Constitution, including protections for freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the collective rights of religious communities.

They argue that churches must be free to worship, teach, discipline, and govern themselves without interference from the state. SACD also raised concerns that the framework breaches the principle of equality by singling out churches for special regulation not imposed on other civil society organisations.

Although the CRL has described the framework as voluntary, SACD says the inclusion of registration requirements, accreditation standards, and a so called seal of good standing creates indirect pressure on churches to comply.

Fears of State Driven Regulation

SACD warned that the framework amounts to state driven regulation of religion through indirect means. They pointed to clauses that propose future legislation to establish a state appointed and state funded body with broad powers over the religious sector.

According to SACD, a Section 22 Committee has no authority to legislate, enforce rules, or regulate churches. Its role is limited to research, consultation, and advice.

The organisation says the draft framework goes far beyond this mandate by attempting to dictate how churches should organise themselves, appoint leaders, manage finances, and govern their internal affairs.

Warning Against Abuse of Power

SACD leaders warned that South Africa must never become a country where the state decides who may hear from God, who may start a church, or how faith should be practised.

They also cited international examples, including Rwanda, Angola, Russia, and China, where increased state control over religion has led to church closures and suffering among believers.

What SACD Is Demanding

SACD says it fully supports the enforcement of criminal law where abuse or corruption occurs, noting that South Africa already has adequate legal mechanisms to deal with crimes such as fraud, assault, and sexual abuse.

However, the organisation rejects any additional regulatory regime imposed specifically on religious communities.

In its court application, SACD is seeking to halt what it describes as unlawful conduct by the CRL Rights Commission and to ensure that religious freedom in South Africa remains real, meaningful, and protected.

The organisation insists that churches must remain free to practise their faith, govern themselves, and operate without state interference.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post SA Church Defenders Take CRL Rights Commission to Court Over Church Regulation Plan appeared first on MDNtv.

CRL Church Proposal Explained: What the Law Already Covers and What It Doesn’t

Esther Tomorrow — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 06:17:15 +0000

As the CRL Rights Commission, through its Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee for the Christian Sector, launches a national consultation on a proposed self-regulatory framework for churches, many South Africans are asking a simple but critical question: do we really need new rules for churches, or do existing laws already cover abuse and exploitation?

The debate has been framed as one of accountability. But a closer look at South Africa’s legal landscape shows that the issue may not be a lack of laws, but how those laws are enforced.

This explainer breaks down what the law already regulates, what it deliberately does not regulate, and where the CRL proposal changes the relationship between church and state.

What the Law Already Covers

South African law already applies fully to churches, pastors, and religious organisations. There is no legal exemption for religious spaces.

Criminal conduct

When harm occurs in a church, it is prosecuted under ordinary criminal law. This includes:

• Assault and grievous bodily harm

• Sexual offences, including rape and exploitation

• Child abuse and neglect

• Intimidation and coercion

Courts have repeatedly ruled that religious belief or consent does not make harmful conduct lawful. The conviction of the so-called Doom pastor is one example where existing law was applied decisively.

Financial and organisational misconduct

Churches are also subject to:

• Fraud and theft legislation

• Tax compliance and SARS oversight

• Non-profit governance requirements where applicable

Religious status does not shield any institution from financial accountability.

Child protection

The Children’s Act and related legislation impose strict duties to protect minors and to report abuse. These obligations apply regardless of whether abuse occurs in a home, school, or church.

In practical terms, criminal law, civil law, and regulatory law already address abuse, exploitation, and misconduct in churches.

What the Law Does Not Cover

While the law addresses crimes, it intentionally does not regulate belief, doctrine, worship practices, or internal church governance.

This is not a gap. It is a constitutional safeguard.

The Constitution protects:

• Freedom of religion and belief

• The right of religious communities to organise and govern themselves

• Doctrinal diversity and theological autonomy

The state is not empowered to decide:

• Who qualifies as a legitimate pastor

• Which doctrines are acceptable

• How churches should structure leadership

• Which churches are spiritually or theologically in “good standing”

This boundary exists to prevent state interference in conscience and belief.

What the CRL Proposal Seeks to Add

The draft framework proposed by the Section 22 Ad Hoc Committee introduces elements that go beyond existing law, including:

• A sector-wide self-regulatory council

• Certification or accreditation mechanisms

• Public seals of good standing

• Standardised ethical and governance benchmarks

Although described as voluntary, such mechanisms can have real consequences. Once associated with a Chapter 9 institution, they can influence public legitimacy, donor confidence, and engagement with the state.

This is where concern begins.

Why the Distinction Matters

If abuse is already criminal, accountability belongs to:

• The police

• Prosecutors

• The courts

Introducing religious oversight structures risks reframing criminal conduct as a governance issue rather than a legal one. It also risks shifting responsibility away from the state’s duty to enforce the law.

More importantly, it raises a constitutional question: at what point does protecting rights become regulating religion?

Enforcement Versus Control

South Africa’s challenge has not been the absence of laws. It has been:

• Weak investigations

• Delayed prosecutions

• Fear of confronting powerful figures

• Uneven enforcement

None of these failures are resolved by regulating churches.

They are resolved by enforcing the law consistently and without fear or favour.

The Constitutional Line That Must Not Be Crossed

Religious freedom in South Africa was deliberately protected to prevent state involvement in belief and worship.

Churches must be accountable under the law.

Criminal conduct must be punished.

Victims must be protected.

But belief, worship, and spiritual governance must remain outside the reach of state-linked regulatory systems.

The Question South Africans Must Answer

The debate is no longer about whether abuse should be addressed. It already is.

The real question is whether the CRL Rights Commission is moving from its constitutional role of protecting religious rights into shaping how religious communities govern themselves.

That distinction will define the future relationship between church and state in South Africa.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post CRL Church Proposal Explained: What the Law Already Covers and What It Doesn’t appeared first on MDNtv.