The CRL Commission, which has new members, is apparently seeking to change course in the affair surrounding the abuse cases at the KwaSizabantu mission. At a press conference in Johannesburg, the newly appointed CRL head, Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, announced that she would now take a closer look at the results of the investigations into the incidents. „There are gaps to be filled“, she said. Together with the victims, a way should be found „that brings them peace“. The signals for a rethink in the KwaSizabantu case come in the middle of a legal battle in which eight witnesses are demanding compensation from the constitutional institution called the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Communities. (See report: Claim for millions against the CRL Commission ).

Since the CRL Commission, due to its narrowly defined statutory mandate, still has no authority to investigate cases of abuse, it is doubtful that it will sit down with victims of the KSB affair. Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, however, affirmed that she does have a mandate to investigate the incidents at the KwaSizabantu Mission because „they occurred in a religious setting“. It is not clear at present if that is the case. The commission was established to protect and promote the rights of cultural, religious, and linguistic communities. At least the statements of the new CRL chairwoman sound more open-minded and considered than the verbal games of hide and seek played by her predecessor, Prof. Mosoma. In a TV interview, she expressed the commission’s willingness to „reopen the proceedings“, but to do so, she would need the cooperation of the mission’s victims. Despite the witnesses’ lawsuit against the commission, a way must be found to get them back to the table.

All in all, „things did not go well,” she said about the progress of the abuse investigations by the previous commission. The new CRL chair also criticized the final report at the end of the proceedings. „The witnesses talked about what happened when they were children. The final report did not address the issue“.  Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva clearly distanced herself from the approach taken by the commission under her predecessor, David Mosoma: „If I say something happened in 1985, then we should focus on what happened then, not what is happening now. There is a gap that needs to be filled“.

Unlike under Mosoma, the CRL Commission now admits that the investigations and the way the KwaSizabantu victims were treated have brought their childhood traumas back to the surface. Mkhwanazi-Xaluva: „We cannot deny that the victims feel violated because of the way the commission treated them“. She wants to talk to the victims and seek a solution to their complaints.

It is not yet possible to say whether the sympathetic tones coming from the Commission actually herald a new approach to dealing with the KSB scandal or are merely intended to polish up its tarnished image. While the new commission leadership hopes for a willingness to talk on the part of the victims and witnesses of KSB, some of the victims expect the commission to revoke the final report, withdraw it unconditionally, and apologize to the KSB victims. Only then, they say, would it be possible to talk to each other.

However, the announcement that the entire process would be restarted from the beginning and that the KSB wanted to talk to the victims of KSB was met with skepticism in former KSB circles. In the more than three years of the process, the witnesses and victims of abuse in the KSB mission had been publicly humiliated by the CRL commission and through constant delays, excuses, and finally a meaningless final report. Not even their suffering was mentioned in the paper. As one of the witnesses put it, „I myself do not want to testify again before the CRL and relive all the remorse, pain, humiliation, and verbal abuse“. In any case, it is considered unlikely that the new commission would ever be able to persuade the KwaSizabantu Mission to appear outside its premises before a new investigative committee. „They only participate in proceedings that they have manipulated themselves beforehand“, said former KSB members.

The Commission has since been served with a summons for a damages claim by eight of the witnesses, who together are claiming nearly 20 million rand for emotional, psychological, and psychiatric harm and injuries inflicted on them by the Commission in the course of the investigation. And in another case on 17 March 2025, the Gauteng High Court is due to hand down its decision on the application to annul the final report of the CRL Commission.

Meanwhile, the former chairman of the CRL Commission, Professor David Mosoma, has described the victims’ lawsuits as “hopeless” and unfounded. At least as far as the annulment of the final report of the investigation proceedings by the High Court in Pretoria is concerned, he could possibly be justifiably optimistic. If, as it eventually turned out, the Commission had no mandate to investigate the abuse cases in KSB, the court might be able to determine that at least the content of the final report remained fully within the Commission’s narrowly defined powers. It leaves out the abuse cases and does not give any assessment of them. Mosoma will hope that the judges will decide something like, „All good, formally in order, it is not for the court to judge the quality of the report“. However, if the court finds that the commission had no mandate to investigate, which the CRL legal department reportedly raised at the beginning of the hearings, then the commission was in violation of the applicable law. This would mean that the final document was unlawfully created and is now finally ready for the trash. 

Incidentally, the new CRL head suggested in the TV interview that laws be enacted requiring the leaders of religious groups to be vetted for suitability by a specially formed committee before taking up office. If their past and suitability are assessed positively, they will receive a license. If serious mistakes in their administration are reported, these would be investigated, and the leaders would be dismissed if the committee so decided. „This is also the case in other professions, so it could be done here as well“, said Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva. Whatever one’s view on the proposal, for the leaders of some church-like groups in South Africa, the realization of such a proposal would have been extremely uncomfortable in the past. The story of KwaSizabantu, for example, shows that the qualifications for leading a faith community were inadequate for many of its leaders.