This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

The South African state is investigating and watching some of the country’s churches.

This is according to the former chair of the Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Rights Commission (CRL), Reverend Professor Musa Xulu.

The CRL is a state institution established by the South African Constitution (a so-called “Chapter 9” institution) to protect and promote the rights of South Africa's diverse cultural, religious, and linguistic communities.

In a statement Xulu said he had received a call from someone claiming to be associated with the South African state security apparatus, saying that Xulu himself had been referred for investigation by his successor as CRL chairman.

He said he had also made an affidavit to the same effect, saying that he had made the claims under oath “because I believe the South African public has a right to know that such allegations now exist”.

The alarm was also raised by a faith-based organisation, the South African Community of Faith-Based Fraternals and Federations (SACOFF), saying the claims were “concerning”.

The claims come amid hearings by the CRL into potentially allowing the regulation of religious bodies by the state.

Xulu said that a number of other bodies that were “opposing” the current CRL process had also been referred to the state security apparatus for investigation and possible surveillance.

In his statement Xulu said: “I have placed these matters on oath because I believe the South African public has a right to know that such allegations now exist. Although I must emphasise that I cannot independently verify the identity of the individual who contacted me, the broader context within which this conversation occurred cannot be ignored. The National Security Strategy 2024-2028 publicly identifies the ‘mushrooming of charismatic churches’ as a domestic national-security concern.”

He went on: “The phrase ‘charismatic churches’ refers to a recognised stream of Christianity involving millions of South Africans. Yet this broad religious category now appears in a national-security framework alongside organised crime, violent extremism, corruption, cyber threats, and terrorism. This raises profound constitutional and moral questions.”

Xulu also said in his time as CRL chair he saw a number of things which alarmed him, including hostility to charismatic and Pentecostal churches.

Xulu said he was concerned that legitimate disagreement with the CRL hearings was being seen as a threat to the state.

“The issue here is not whether the state may investigate criminal conduct where genuine criminality exists. Of course it may. The issue is whether a Chapter 9 institution established to protect religious rights has instead participated, directly or indirectly, in portraying lawful Christian organisations, leaders, and movements as security concerns because they opposed a controversial state-linked regulatory agenda. That would represent a grave departure from constitutional democracy,” said Xulu.

SACOFF, which is headed by Pastor Bert Pretorius, also said it would be seeking to engage with authorities, including the presidency and State Security Agency, to obtain clarity on “whether churches or Christian organisations are in fact being monitored or investigated; who authorised or initiated such actions; the reasons behind any classification of church movements as national security concerns; and what safeguards exist to protect constitutional religious freedoms”.