Review and Amendment of the NGO Registration Act: Ugandan NGO views needed

Operating environment of NGOs in Uganda

NGOs play a critical role in the development of a country. In Uganda NGOs work in areas of service delivery, supplementing the government while others focus on advocacy with a general aim of improving the legal, policy and institutional framework of the country. The NGO sector in Uganda is among the biggest employer and tax payer thus having direct and indirect support to livelihoods and facilitating development. Despite their importance NGOs in Uganda face challenges from regulating agencies, laws and policies governing their regulation as well as internal NGO challenges.

It should be noted that countries world over have laws and policies to regulate NGOs, however the regulations/laws focus on enabling the NGOs do their work as opposed to limiting them, this is not the case as the NGO Act and the Regulation limit the work of NGOs as opposed to facilitating the carry out their mandate.

The NGO Act and the regulations have some provisions that limit or have a potential to limit the operation of NGOs in Uganda, this not only affects the NGOs or its staff, but has dire consequences on members of the community who benefit from the services provided by the NGOs. Below is a summary of the challenges brought about by the prevailing legal and policy framework and recommendations to improve them.

Summary of issues and challenges in the NGO Registration Act and the regulations made there under

1. Makes it a must for all NGOs to register thereby limiting the right to associate informally.

2. On top of registration, an NGO must have yearly permits, this limits the ability of NGOs to operate effectively since most projects cannot be achieved within a year and yet it is not a guarantee that the NGO will have its permit renewed. The applicability of this law is discriminatory since other associations do not require this permit in order for them to operate. It will also hinder the consistent flow of operations of NGOs which solely depend on donor funding and yet have to be given permission to operate.

Recommendation: Remove the requirement for mandatory registration, issuance of yearly permits since they contravene fundamental freedoms enshrined under Articles 29 of the constitution.

3. The NGO Act does not directly provide for a representative from the NGO fraternity on the NGO Board, the 10 representatives are likely to come from Government departments who may not be familiar with NGO concerns.

Recommendation: Representatives should be chosen from NGOs (at least 3) such that their interests and voice can be heard on the board.

4. The NGO Act restricts rural activity as it requires seven days notice in writing to the RDC before a national NGO makes direct contact with rural Uganda. This politicizes the process of decision making. It also affects planning and working for NGOs since project implementation will be dependent on the availability of the permit.

Recommendation: We recommend that the 7 days notice removed, and valid registration should be enough to enable the NGO operate in any part of the country.

5. The Act makes it a must for NGOs to cooperate with local councils in the area of operation yet according to the Constitution 1996 national development policy directives NGOs are supposed to be autonomous and independent.

Recommendation: The provision is unconstitutional and should be treated as such as it is against the spirit of Article 29 of the constitution. This provision should not be made mandatory but allow for involvement of community leaders where necessary because some NGOs work with clients who may prefer anonymity or privacy hence the presence or involvement of local leaders could jeopardize the delivery of services.

6. An NGO which is denied a right to register does not have clear channels to appeal; appeals have to be filed with the minister and not an independent court.

7. The Act provides no right to appeal in case of involuntary termination. The process of termination is carried out by the board which may lack the technical ability to terminate an NGO. This will bring key implications employees, debtors, donors and other partners of the NGO.

Recommendation: The Act should provide for an NGO which is not happy with the decision of the board to petition court for redress.

8. The Act and the regulations give powers to windup an NGO if it does not comply with the law or the conditions set out in the certificate of registration. The winding up by the board may not be able consider other important issues such as debts, employees and other liabilities of the NGO before it is wound up.

Recommendation Winding up should be made part of the Act instead of being regulations that are easily. Winding up of an NGO should be done by court. The law should provide for circumstances where the board can originate a winding up process (like it in the Companies Act). The winding up of an NGO should be on clearly set grounds including management of the assets and liabilities of the NGO before it is wound up.

9. The Act provides for the criminalization of an NGO and its directors or officers once an offence has been committed. This is an attempt to go beyond principles of common law with regard to a company/body which at law is a body corporate, and distinct from its members.

Recommendation: The law applicable to companies or a body corporate should apply and the corporate veil only lifted when circumstances permit as enshrined by common law.

Other concerns within the operating environment

10. A conflict between the NGO laws and the Companies Act. the companies act provides that an organization can be registered as on limited by guarantee (and not for profit) and such organization operates as an NGO. Many NGOs in Uganda because of the challenges in the previous laws were forced to register as private companies or as trustee. The 2006 amendment does not provide for transition. There have been cases where the NGO board has refused to register NGOs or issue permits because of the dual registration.

11. The existence for “quack”/brief case NGOs who have conned people of their money and resources hence motivating the state to increase scrutiny of NGOs.

The capacity of the NGO board should be increased to be able to detect such NGOs. NGOs should however be left to do self regulation and self monitoring. NGOs should adopt quality control measures to clear their “house”.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT; P.O.Box 21265 Plot 94 Old Kiira Road Ntinda, Tel+ 256 414 286 923/285 362, Fax 256 14 286 881, Email: data@hurinet.or.ug , hurinet@gmail.com Website: www.hurinet.or.ug