Uganda is seeking to regulate the activities of non-governmental organisations in the country under a proposed new law, ostensibly as part of efforts to boost national security.

According to Rose Namayanja, the Minister of Information and National Guidance, the Non-Governmental Organisations Bill 2015, to be debated in parliament soon, will provide the government with an avenue to shield Uganda from undocumented inflows and outflows of funds to NGOs that could potentially be used to fan instability.

The government has cited concerns that some organisations are engaging in subversive activities that could put the country’s security at risk.

But rights groups say the Bill is punitive, giving authorities sweeping powers to clampdown on NGOs critical of the regime. They say that in particular, it targets those working on oil transparency, human rights, governance and corruption, and have previously worked with the opposition in pushing for reforms.

Last year, for example, a host of civil society groups and opposition parties mobilised Ugandans to demand a new system of managing elections in the upcoming polls in 2016.

The proposed law gives the Internal Affairs Minister powers to supervise, approve, inspect, and dissolve all NGOs and impose severe criminal penalties for violations.

“If passed in its current form, the Bill will obstruct the ability of Ugandans to work collectively through local and international organisations on any research or advocacy that may be deemed critical of the government,” said Nicholas Opiyo, executive director of Chapter Four Uganda, an organisation that advocates for civil liberties.

The NGO Bill seeks to curtail the political activities of civil society groups by requiring them not to engage in any campaigns or support a political cause.

READ: Jitters as Uganda moves to tighten grip on ‘errant’ NGOs

Hundreds of millions of dollars flow across borders from Western capitals to human rights and democracy-building programmes in the region, rubbing governments the wrong way.

For example, USAid under its Office of Transition Initiatives has been accused of funding large-scale anti-government protests to bring down regimes not amenable to Washington’s interests.

In 2004, for example, USAid was planning to spend $450,000 in Venezuela to train political parties in the design, planning and execution of electoral campaigns. The package included training schools where opposition leaders would be recruited and taught “viable campaign strategies and effectively communicating party platforms to voters.”

A fightback by civil society organisations that have been singled out for special scrutiny is currently underway.

In Uganda, Mr Opiyo said that vague and overly broad provisions in the NGO Bill are not only open to abuse by authorities but also provide an avenue to silence peaceful government critics and activists of all sorts.

“For example one provision requiring all NGOs not to engage in activities that are considered harmful to the interests and the dignity of Ugandan people could be used to clamp down on gay-rights activists in a country where supporting their rights is a criminal offence,” he said.

Mr Opiyo led the team that successfully challenged the legality of the Anti-Homosexuality Act — one of several legislations that are seen as draconian.

The draft law also proposes a prison sentence of up to eight years if an NGO operates without a permit, which could be easily revoked by the internal affairs minister if she or he thinks “…it is in the public interest to do so.”

Even more troubling is that appeals against revoked permits can only be made to the minister.

Authorities can also inspect the premises of NGOs and request information anytime, question staff and seize documents without notice.

But Human Rights Watch (HRW) says criminalising behaviour that is inherently legitimate is an infringement of the right to freedom of association.

“The possibility of long prison terms for carrying out civic work without a permit should be scrapped, along with many other provisions,” said Maria Burnett, senior Africa researcher at HRW. 

The new Bill comes after a set of new media laws were made to control and criminalise the work of journalists reporting on controversial political subjects.

Another draconian law passed in 2013, the Public Order Management Bill, prohibits protests of more than three people without prior police authorisation.
But Uganda is not alone in attempts to restrict the activities of NGOs.

READ: East African govts to crack down on civil societies, NGOs

In Kenya, anxiety has gripped civil society groups over the implications of the proposed amendments to the Public Benefits Organisation Act passed in 2013.

NGOs in Kenya have expressed concerns that some amendments do not provide a conducive environment for the operations of these groups, and in the past five months, a government-led taskforce has been going around the country collecting views on the proposed changes from civil society groups.

The proposed amendments will impose a 15 per cent cap on the amount of resources NGOs can mobilise externally, dealing a death blow to the country’s vibrant civil society sector.

They will also weaken self-regulation by introducing a powerful regulatory agency controlled by the government.

A coalition of NGOs under the CSO Reference Groups, which is lobbying against the amendments, is urging the government to drop the draconian amendments and gazette the Act in its current form.

In Rwanda, while the regulatory regime governing NGOs does not limit foreign funding as is the trend in much of Africa, the registration process is burdensome, lengthy and convoluted.

The scope of activities an organisation can engage in is also limited to what Kigali considers to be the nation’s priorities. Technically, there are no barriers for civil society groups to engage in political activities. However, human-rights activists have been arbitrarily harassed or threatened by authorities.

In neighbouring Burundi, which will be holding elections in June, authorities have intensified a crackdown on civil society groups and the media.

Journalists and political activists have faced continuous judicial harassment, and been imprisoned or prosecuted on many occasions.

Like in Rwanda, civil society organisations have to wade through layers of bureaucratic red-tape to be registered. Some groups have had their application denied because the government did not agree with their objectives.