- Parliament’s decision to revisit the Section 22 Committee presents an opportunity to strengthen transparency and accountability.
- Genuine representation of South Africa’s faith communities is essential to restoring confidence in the process.
- A transparent and representative Committee can protect both vulnerable people and constitutional religious freedom.
The recent engagement between Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), the CRL Rights Commission and the Section 22 Committee offers an important opportunity for South Africa.
Rather than simply continuing the current process, Parliament has recognised the need for a fresh start—one that is more inclusive, more transparent and more representative of South Africa’s faith communities. That is an encouraging development, and one that deserves the support of every person who values both accountability and religious freedom.
As churches, we welcome every sincere effort to protect vulnerable people, promote ethical leadership and strengthen public trust. Abuse, exploitation and criminal conduct have no place in the Church and should never be tolerated or concealed. Those who commit crimes should face the full consequences of the law.
At the same time, accountability and religious freedom are not competing principles. Our Constitution protects both, and a healthy democracy requires both. For that reason, the credibility of the process itself matters.
Why representation matters
One of the areas that now deserves careful attention is the composition of the current Section 22 Committee. Trust in any representative process begins with confidence in those entrusted to lead it. Yet many within the faith community continue to ask reasonable questions. Who appointed the current members? Which organisations do they presently represent?
Who still holds a valid mandate from those constituencies? Since the Committee was first constituted, who has resigned? Who has been added? Under what process were additional members appointed, and on whose authority were those appointments made?
These are not questions about personalities. They are questions about transparency, accountability and good governance. It is therefore encouraging that Parliament has recognised what SACOFF and many of South Africa’s largest Christian federations and denominations have consistently submitted: restoring confidence requires more than simply continuing the existing process. It requires a genuine reset of the Committee itself.
Such a reset should include the publication of a complete and current list of Committee members and alternates, the organisations they represent, the authority under which they serve, and confirmation that they continue to hold an active mandate from those constituencies. Transparency of this nature would not weaken the process; it would strengthen it by restoring confidence across the faith community.
Participation is not endorsement
Representation also requires another important distinction. Participation in a consultation process should never automatically be interpreted as endorsement of that process. Many churches, denominations and faith organisations participated in meetings because they wanted to engage constructively, raise concerns or offer alternative proposals. Their willingness to participate should not be presented as evidence that they support the Committee’s mandate or every recommendation that has emerged from it.
Meaningful consultation depends on honestly distinguishing between participation, representation and endorsement. South Africa’s Christian community is wonderfully diverse. No single organisation speaks for every church, denomination or ministry. That is precisely why broad, transparent and credible representation is so important.
SACOFF represents hundreds of Christian organisations and more than 25 000 churches across all nine provinces. We do not mention this to seek special recognition or preferential treatment. Rather, it illustrates the importance of ensuring that major Christian constituencies are meaningfully represented whenever structures are established that seek to speak on behalf of the Church.
Building on existing foundations
Our desire has never been conflict. Our desire has always been partnership. For several years, churches and faith organisations have already invested significant effort in developing voluntary mechanisms that promote ethical leadership, accountability and good governance while respecting the constitutional independence of religious institutions.
These contributions should not be overlooked. They provide a valuable foundation upon which Parliament can build. Rather than creating division, this moment presents an opportunity to build something better together.
Five practical steps
As Parliament considers the next phase of the process, five practical steps could help restore confidence throughout the religious sector.
First, ensure that the Committee is genuinely reconstituted so that it reflects the breadth and diversity of South Africa’s faith communities.
Second, publish a complete and current register of Committee members, alternates, the organisations they represent and the mandates under which they serve.
Third, clearly distinguish between participation in consultations and endorsement of the Committee’s work or recommendations.
Fourth, carefully consider the accountability mechanisms, codes of conduct and proposals that have already been developed by faith communities before creating additional structures.
Finally, continue building a process that protects vulnerable people while safeguarding the constitutional independence and religious freedom of faith communities.
A stronger partnership
South Africa needs both accountability and religious freedom. Every day churches feed families, care for vulnerable children, support people struggling with addiction, strengthen marriages, mentor young people, respond to disasters and bring hope to communities across our nation.
The Church is not an obstacle to accountability; it is one of South Africa’s greatest partners in building a flourishing society. Parliament now has an opportunity to strengthen that partnership.
A genuine reset—grounded in transparency, broad representation and mutual respect—can restore confidence in this process and produce an outcome that protects vulnerable people while preserving the constitutional freedoms that are essential to our democracy.
That is not only possible. It is a goal worthy of all of us.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conviction.co.za.
