Key Points
- The applicants challenge the CRL Rights Commission’s 2023 report on the KwaSizabantu Church.
- The applicants allege investigative errors as well as evidence neglect and lack of victim protection during the examination.
- Procedures within the case need examination prior to addressing the primary petition.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria faces a request to evaluate and possibly discard the 2023 CRL Rights Commission report about KwaSizabantu Church (KSB) religious rights violations and ethical misconduct in KwaZulu-Natal.
The current CRL Rights Commission report lacks particular conclusions about the complaints while five affected parties plan to seek formal cancellation of the document.
Legal challenge filed of malpractice and flawed investigation
Through their legal submission Erika Bornman and Pastor Martin Frische dispute the validity of the report by the CRL Rights Commission for both constitutional violations and improper legalities.
The commission conducted an unprofessional investigation that overlooked evidence while implementing improper methods according to the applicants.
The applicants state the commission failed to execute its role that safeguards religious persons including children while conducting investigations with impartiality.
The CRL Rights Commission defends its published report by stating that it accomplished all CRL Act requirements. KSB needed to issue formal apologies to its previous members yet the Commission did not specify details about the claims raised.
The commission declared that hearings would be premature because applicants failed to use proper available school processes before requesting external intervention.
Concerns over missing evidence and procedural issues
The applicants pointed out that the commission failed to evaluate the testimonies submitted by various witnesses including former members and children who had suffered abuse.
The commission deliberately avoided investigating crucial testimonies in order to produce misleading results both for public awareness and victim satisfaction according to the applicants’ position.
The commission’s delayed submission of documents led the applicants to petition for court discarding these documents.
Legal standing and next steps
The court needs more time to decide on several procedural matters brought forth by applicants who debate their right to sue and need additional parties involved. Proceedings for the main application will begin after every aspect in question has been resolved.
Through their Legal challenge filed application the individuals seek judgment that would invalidate and unconstitutional aspects of the document as they hope the court will monitor whether the investigation properly obeys South African law.
 stating religious rights violations.){kind=link}