Home South Africa News CRL Rights Commission and FORSA Clash Heads to Court Amid Defamation Claims

CRL Rights Commission and FORSA Clash Heads to Court Amid Defamation Claims

CRL Rights Commission and FORSA Clash Heads to Court Amid Defamation Claims
CRL Rights Commission and FORSA Clash Heads to Court Amid Defamation Claims. Image for illustration purposes only, generated with AI.

The dispute between the CRL Rights Commission and the faith-based lobby group Freedom of Religion South Africa (FORSA) has escalated, with both parties now preparing for a legal battle.

Last week, CRL Chairperson Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva and activist Cheryl Zondi—known for her testimony in the Timothy Omotoso rape trial—opened a criminal case against FORSA director Michael Swain, accusing him of spreading defamatory misinformation about the commission.

The CRL alleges that Swain made damaging statements online, including claims that the commission seeks to regulate religion and that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva improperly influenced a 2019 petition against her reappointment. The commission also denies allegations that its chairperson benefited financially from the Cheryl Zondi Foundation’s R1.5 million National Lottery funding.

Mkhwanazi-Xaluva has dismissed the claims as baseless, stating, “There’s a limit to what we can take… This is not the time when we do nothing. We need to send a strong message to people trying to avoid accountability.”

However, Swain has rejected the accusations, calling them false and defamatory. He expressed disappointment that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva did not seek clarity from FORSA before taking legal action.

“FORSA has never alleged financial misconduct by the CRL chair or Cheryl Zondi,” Swain stated. “Our concerns were about perceived conflicts of interest, not financial impropriety.”

FORSA maintains that its criticisms were within its mandate as a religious freedom watchdog and insists it will defend itself vigorously. The group is also considering counterlegal action, including a defamation claim against Mkhwanazi-Xaluva for past statements.

As tensions rise, the case highlights growing scrutiny over the independence of Chapter 9 institutions and the boundaries of advocacy in South Africa’s religious and legal landscape.