Uganda's NGO law: Most repressive in East Africa?

Uganda is poised to pass a law granting a government-appointed board nearly incontestable power to reject or dissolve nongovernmental and community-based organizations. Activists see the new — more punitive — legislation as part of a broader effort to restrict their freedoms of expression and association ahead of next year’s presidential vote. The bill introduces stiff penalties and even jail time for NGO and CBO employees who violate its vague requirements. And they worry the new act, which allows an already existing and largely autonomous NGO board to shutter groups when “it is in the public interest to do so,” could also be turned against organizations offering services to LGBT communities and other marginalized groups. The government has argued that the new legislation is critical to regulating an NGO sector that has been allowed to grow unwieldy and, in some instances, to threaten the public good. Even the bill’s fiercest critics acknowledge that the strong governmental backing means the law is likely to gain parliamentary approval in the coming months. Which is why activists are already openly discussing avenues for circumventing or overturning the act if President Yoweri Museveni signs it into law. What the law means for NGOs — and what’s still unclear First, though, activist groups are organizing small forums around Uganda’s capital, Kampala, to explain to NGOs and CBOs what exactly the new legislation allows. While the language of the new bill was published in the government gazette in early April, its contents have not been widely disseminated or discussed. “People are simply surprised by the likely implications,” said Edward Mwebaza, the head of the advocacy and networking unit within the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum. His organization supports sexual minorities, including the country’s embattled LGBT community. “I think the general terms should be that the people were not prepared” for the law. Officially called the Nongovernmental Organizations Bill 2015, the act’s introduction promises to “provide a conducive and enabling environment” for the NGO sector. It requires all NGOs register with a board and acquire a permit. That body, which is appointed by the minister of internal affairs, would have the power to deny groups “where it is in the public interest to refuse to register the organization, or … for any other reason that the board may deem relevant.” Current law permits groups to register either through the NGO board or, under the 2012 Companies Act, as companies limited by guarantee — an alternative corporation used primarily for nonprofit organizations. “Organizations like us work with communities people are not comfortable with,” said HRAPF Project Officer Joaninne Nanyange. Though none of their activities violate Ugandan law, she said the NGO board has historically refused to register them, which is why they have usually gone the route of registering under the Companies Act. It is still unclear under the proposed legislation whether that will remain an option. If NGOs gamble that the old bifurcated system still holds and are later determined to be wrong, the consequences are high: Operating without a board-approved license could open the NGO’s director to a fine and a jail sentence of up to eight years. At the same time, Nanyange warned that compulsory registration through the NGO board would “make it impossible to have any organizations that work with LGBT issues.” It could also force service providers who assist marginalized groups alongside their other clients to make a choice between culling their outreach or facing discipline and possible closure. And depending on how political the board chooses to be, the registration process could ultimately prove challenging for any group that finds itself at odds with Museveni and his ruling party, regardless of the issue. The registration is only the first hurdle. Once registered and licensed, the board would still have the authority to inspect an organization’s office without warning and revoke its operating permit for virtually any reason. “You don’t know when you’re committing an offense and when you’re not committing an offense,” Nanyange said. “Anyone can interpret it any way that they want.” The only recourse is an appeal to the minister of internal affairs — the same person who appointed the board. Benard Ssembatya is the team leader for Vinacef Uganda, a local NGO that focuses on sexual and reproductive health for women and youth. Initially only familiar with the bill through radio bulletins, he walked away from an HRAPF training in early June ready to petition the Ugandan Parliament not to pass the bill. “Even those that are registering are not safe,” he has concluded. ‘Clear intention’ to repress NGOs The new act is a departure in tone from the National NGO Policy, a document drafted in 2010 by the ministry of internal affairs in collaboration with the NGO community. The policy both acknowledged the tension between the two groups — “NGOs have expressed a level of discontent with what they perceive as overbearing government regulatory oversight which constrains their freedom of action” — and looked for a middle ground. Rather than giving the NGO board punitive powers, for example, the policy envisioned one of the board’s responsibilities as facilitating interaction between NGOs and their appropriate counterparts in government. That language of cooperation has disappeared in the government’s response to civil society criticism of the new bill. Ofwono Opondo, the government spokesman, released a statement explaining the new law is necessary “to protect the public especially because of the changing times of criminality. Some NGOs have been found to be involved in extortion of money from the public, financial fraud, money laundering and human trafficking, especially of vulnerable children.” But Joshua Niyo, a program officer with the legal advocacy group, Chapter Four Uganda, suspects the real targets are organizations focusing on minority rights and services or those engaging in the political sphere, especially around issues of corruption and electoral reforms. “There’s a clear intention by the government to repress NGOs and CBOs,” he said. And while he acknowledges that the government has the responsibility to regulate those groups, the new bill crosses over into “controlling” when they can exercise their rights to expression and association. Niyo positioned it as the latest in a series of legislative maneuvers to winnow down the space for civic engagement. Since the last election, NGOs have been involved in several high-profile movements criticizing government waste and corruption. In late 2012, the Black Monday movement called on citizens to wear black every Monday to protest the perceived theft of government funds. And in 2011, several NGOs joined opposition leaders in a campaign asking people to walk to work in protest of rising fuel prices. With the next round of elections less than a year away, Niyo said it is no surprise the government has been pushing through legislation like the 2013 Public Order Management Act, which allows police to break up meetings of three or more people, and now the new NGO regulations. “They want to create an atmosphere where there’s no space for civic engagement,” he said. In the process, Uganda may have crafted the most repressive NGO legislation in East Africa. “There’s a global trend in repressing civic space,” said Niyo, who has been working with the Uganda National NGO Forum to analyze the legal ramifications of the act. “Of course this one is much more high-handed, it’s much more intense. I think it’s much more far-reaching.” While Kenya’s legal system, for example, also makes registration mandatory for NGOs, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law found that “in practice … many NGOs that fall within the definition of NGO have opted to register under alternative legal forms.” And in Rwanda, ICNL praised NGO legislation introduced in 2012 for its “reasonable registration provisions” and for placing “restrictions on the power of the [NGO board] to deny registration.” With bill likely to pass, a need to change engagement strategy Though NGO employees like Vinacef’s Ssembatya are preparing to voice their concerns with the legislation to parliamentarians ahead of an expected vote within the next few months, Niyo expects that it is probably too late to stop the bill from passing. “I think the strategy needs to change to how will we engage once it has been passed,” he said. Several options have been discussed, including an outright boycott of the legislation or a constitutional court challenge on the grounds that the bill violates freedoms of association and expression. They have even discussed asking the court to overturn the legislation because it does not offer judicial review of the NGO board’s decision. And even as activists educate NGOs about what the bill means, they are collecting additional ideas for how best to challenge it. Check out more insights and analysis for global development leaders like you, and sign up as an Executive Member to receive the information you need for your organization to thrive.