On December 15, 2000, the Minister of State for Internal Affairs, Sarah Namusoke Kiyingi, submitted the proposed Non-Governmental Organizations Registration (Amendment) Bill to the Ugandan parliament on December 15, 2000. It was subsequently discussed by the Parliamentary Committee on Defense and Internal Affairs just weeks before new parliamentary elections were held on June 26, 2001. As part of this process, the committee met representatives of Ugandan NGOs, who informed the committee of their concerns.
In July 2001, the parliament was constituted and by August 2001, it was taking up its work. The new Minister of Internal Affairs, Eriya Kategaya, appointed following the elections, will soon launch the debate about the bill by presenting it to the newly constituted Committee on Defense and Internal Affairs.
The NGO bill proposes to further limit freedom of association and to heighten state control over Uganda's NGOs. The bill provides that, in the future, NGOs will not only have to register with the NGO board but also acquire a special permit from the board before they may legally function.25 Neither the precise nature nor function of the permit is defined, however, but the Minister of Internal Affairs would be empowered to make regulations "prescribing the duration and the form of a permit."26 In other words, the minister would be given effective "carte blanche" to set conditions for the permits without having to submit these for prior parliamentary approval, a potentially draconian power.
One positive aspect of the bill is that it would require that in future no less than one third of the members of the NGO Board are women.27 It would also broaden the NGO board's composition: however, the new members would be drawn almost exclusively from several government ministries not previously represented. The bill would add officials from the health, agriculture, tourism, gender and education/ sports ministries,28 in a sense reflecting the extent to which NGOs have become active in issues related to public health, protection of the environment, women's rights, and in other social and cultural areas.
The bill makes no provision, though, for appointing NGO representatives to the NGO board, for transforming it into an independent registration and oversight body, or for subjecting its decision-making to judicial oversight and review. On the contrary, the bill envisages that the NGO board will remain firmly under the government's direct control.
The bill would also increase the NGO board's power to reject or terminate NGO registrations by stipulating that the NGO board could reject any NGO whose objectives "as specified in its constitution are in contravention of any government policy or plan, or public interest".29 This would allow the government, through its control of the NGO board, virtually limitless powers to interfere with legitimate NGO activities and, effectively, to order the closure of any NGO deemed to have criticized the government or its policies. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that an NGO that declared a commitment to human rights in its constitution could be held to be in contravention of certain aspects of government policy, and barred from existence.
The bill would make individuals as well as their organizations directly liable for any breaches of the law, such as operating without official registration, which would become a criminal offence leading to possible imprisonment. This is an important change from the current law, which foresees punishment of individuals only as default, in the case that an NGO fails to pay a fine levied against it. According to the NGO bill, an organization that continues to operate after its permit has expired or its registration has been withdrawn, or that contravenes the law in any other way, "is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five currency points".30 In addition, it states: "any director or officer whose act or omission gave rise also commits the offence" and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty currency points or to a period of up to one year of imprisonment.31
The bill lists terms of imprisonment and fines as equal alternatives, with the judge apparently having discretion to choose between them. Compared to the current law, this would increase the likelihood that individuals could be sent to prison solely on account of their legitimate exercise of their internationally recognized right to freedom of association. It is proposed also to increase the level of financial penalties: currently, fines for NGO breaches must not exceed 200,000 Ugandan Shillings (about U.S. $120) but the new limit would be raised to fifty currency points, i.e. 1,000,000 Ugandan Shillings (about U.S. $600). In Uganda, this is the equivalent of about three months' salary for a full-time teacher, and some NGOs would face serious difficulties if they were required to pay such a sum.
Disappointingly, the drafters of the proposed new law make no attempt to lay the ground for a constructive relationship between NGOs and the government by, for example, institutionalizing channels of communication and cooperation or providing for NGOs representation on certain state bodies. The emphasis, rather, is on narrowing the rights guaranteed to the individual, not strengthening them. Most ominously, the bill's provisions potentially criminalize legitimate NGO work. It is an ill-considered measure that would impose limits on freedom of association that exceed those permitted under international law. As such, it should be withdrawn by the government or rejected by Uganda's parliament.
30 Article 1(7) and 1(8). One currency point is 20,000 Ugandan Shillings. Fifty currency points are 1,000,000 Ugandan Shillings (approximately $550).