Hindu community concerned over establishment of Section 22 structure without consultation

Dear Mrs Mkhwanazi-Xaluva,

Chairperson, CRL Commission 

THE South African Hindu Maha Sabha is recognised by our government as the national body representing Hindus in our country.

The Hindu community has consistently participated in interfaith and civic processes. Inclusive consultation and transparent communication are essential to the credibility and success of any institution that affects religious or cultural sectors.

As representatives of the Hindu community, we express our deep concern regarding the establishment of a Section 22 structure without meaningful engagement with recognised stakeholders from the Hindu sector.

Such omission is inconsistent with constitutional and statutory expectations governing participatory processes and undermines the legitimacy of the structure being implemented.

1. Deviation from constitutional imperatives of public participation Consultation and public participation are established constitutional principles in South Africa. Consultation allows affected communities to understand implications, provide input, and improve outcomes. Proceeding without engaging the Hindu sector disregards these core principles of accountability, responsiveness, and openness.

1. Failure to uphold statutory principles of transparency and good governance South African legislation emphasises transparency, fairness, and predictable decision-making. The absence of communication regarding the formation, purpose, scope, mandate, and authority of the Section 22 structure is inconsistent with these statutory obligations and raises concerns about procedural compliance.

1. Procedural unfairness and exclusion of an affected stakeholder group

It is deeply concerning that a structure of this magnitude has been constituted without any prior notification, invitation for comment, or formal consultative process involving the Hindu sector. By excluding the Hindu sector from the establishment of the Section 22 process, the responsible body denied an affected constituency its legitimate expectation to be heard.  Such omission undermines procedural fairness, constitutes a significant deviation from established expectations of participatory governance and calls into question the validity of the process.

1. Risks of eroding institutional legitimacy and trust

The credibility and acceptance of any statutory structure depend on its compliance with constitutional values and established participatory norms. The Hindu community has a longstanding and constructive record in interfaith, cultural, and civic engagement. Decisions implemented without consultation create the impression of exclusion, undermine trust between sectors, and may compromise the ability of the structure to function effectively.

The lack of consultation has led to:

• Perceived exclusion – Hindu perspectives, needs, and values appear disregarded.
• Lack of clarity: Stakeholders lack understanding of the mandate, objectives, and long-term implications of the new structure.
• Strained interfaith relations: Non-inclusive processes risk undermining trust and cooperation across religious sectors.
• Erosion of credibility: Decisions made without stakeholder involvement weaken confidence in the institution.

There is also concern that the CRL is exceeding its mandate and bypassing existing Legal protections.

While the CRL rightly raises concerns about the need to curb abuses within religious organisations, South Africa already has a comprehensive legal framework addressing fraud, assault, financial misconduct, sexual offences, and child protection.

The state should enforce existing laws, and religious communities should not be burdened with governance structures that duplicate or exceed constitutional protections.

The CRL’s constitutional role is to promote and protect the rights of religious, cultural, and linguistic communities — not to supervise or regulate them.

Request for immediate remedial action

The Hindu sector formally requests:

1. An explanation and an apology from the CRL for excluding the minority Hindu sector.
2. A detailed explanation of the rationale, objectives, and legal authority for establishing the Section 22 structure.
3. An urgent formal engagement process to enable the Hindu sector to raise concerns and provide input.
4. Written assurance that future decisions of this nature will include timely, meaningful consultation with all affected stakeholders.

SAHMS remains committed to constructive involvement and principled collaboration,  dialogue, interfaith and intersectoral cooperation. Such a partnership is only possible when processes are transparent, inclusive, and procedurally sound. Decisions made without inclusive consultation risk undermining trust and may inadvertently create divisions where partnership is needed. We therefore respectfully request that the concerns raised be addressed as a priority to restore confidence and ensure equitable participation in the future. Through transparent communication and inclusive processes, we can collectively build structures that reflect the diverse voices and values of our society.

PROFFESSOR BRIJ MAHARAJ

Deputy President SAHMS