HON. MASHONGANYIKA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I want to present a report on the Joint Portfolio Committees on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare and the Thematic Committee on Gender and Development on public consultations on the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill [H.B. 2, 20024].
INTRODUCTION
The Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill [H.B. 2. 2024] was published in the Gazette on the 1st of March 2024. The Bill has four objectives. The first is to comply with the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF) recommendations, especially number 8 which targets the abuse of Private Voluntary Organisations (PVOs) for terrorist financing. This recommendation emphasises a risk-based approach, requiring governments to identify PVOs at risk and apply proportionate measures to mitigate these risks. The second objective is to streamline administrative procedures for PVOs to allow for their efficient regulation and registration. The third and fourth objectives are to provide measures to prevent and mitigate proliferation financing and to safeguard against the abuse of charitable giving for political or social undesirable ends respectively.
FATF is an inter-governmental organisation founded in 1989 on the initiative of the G7 countries and Zimbabwe is a member. FATF was established to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and other threats to the integrity of the international financial system. Each member country is assessed periodically for compliance with the policies and legislation on money laundering and financing of terrorism. The main objectives of FATF include setting standards and promoting effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measure, assessing compliance by countries, identifying and analysing threats, promoting global adoption and implementation, maintaining a list of high-risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions supporting the implementation of financials providing training and technical assistance. These objectives help to protect the global financial system from misuse and promote transparency, integrity, and resilience in financial markets. Zimbabwe was placed under a monitoring programme in October 2018 by FATF in order to ensure the country aligns its laws on private voluntary organisations.
METHODOLOGY
In terms of Section 141 of the Constitution, which mandates Parliament to ensure public involvement in its legislative process and that interested parties are consulted about Bills, the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare, and the Thematic Committee on Gender and Development conducted public consultations on the Bill from 12 to 17 May 2024. The Joint Committee was divided into two teams which undertook consultations at 10 different venues across the 10 provinces of Zimbabwe.
In addition, the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour, and Social Welfare attended a workshop organised by Zim Institute in partnership with the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. The workshop was also attended by representatives from Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) during which they presented their views on the Bill.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
General Observations
Some members of the public supported the Bill, stating that PVOs needed to be regulated at a higher level since some of them abuse funds from donors for personal gain. It was highlighted that as long as PVOs operate in good faith, sticking to their mandate and transparency, they would never be adversely affected by the new amendments. In addition, it was noted that good supervision of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) was necessary to stop them from meddling in politics, particularly by supporting political parties. Some NGOs were accused of using the communities to source funds, but such funds were never used for the benefit of the communities. Furthermore, it was noted that some PVOs were diluting the local culture, resulting in moral decadence, hence the need for regulation. Finally, the Bill was applauded as it sought to curb terrorism, which had profoundly affected some countries socio-economically, including those on the continent.
- Some members of the public were of the view that the Bill, as currently drafted, imposes broad and restrictive measures that could undermine the operational effectiveness and independence of the Non-Profit Organisations sector since all civil society organisations need to be registered as PVOs. They stated that the Bill does not adequately differentiate between high-risk and low-risk Non-Profit Organisations. This lack of specificity could result in unnecessary restrictions on legitimate activities, ultimately harming the sector’s ability to contribute to the social and economic development of the country, resulting in loss of employment and foreign currency earnings through taxes paid by NGOs and humanitarian assistance. Another reservation by the public on the Bill was that the Ministerial intervention and harsh penalties may lead to self-censorship and discourage NPOs from engaging in advocacy and human rights work. This could weaken the sector’s role in promoting social justice and holding the government accountable.
- The proposal was to retain the distinction between charitable trusts and other NGOs. It argued that having all PVOs regulated in one basket will create conflict with existing laws as registration processes and regulation mechanisms are different. It was proposed that trusts registered under the Deeds Registries Act and common law universitas should still be allowed to exist and operate within mandates and remain exempted from registration as PVOs. However, some applauded this approach, citing that the PVOs should abide by the law and operate within their core business and therefore, should be registered as PVOs. Lastly, there were some members of the public who rejected the Bill.
Highlights of Participants’ Views
Clause 3
The overall concern by the CSOs was the removal of the PVO Board and replaced by the Registrar of PVOs who shall be the registration and regulatory authority of PVOs. They complained that all decision-making powers are placed in the hands of the Registrar and suggested limiting the Registrar’s powers to clearly defined administrative functions. They also called for involvement of a board to investigate issues before any ministerial intervention. Additionally, they recommended incorporating judicial oversight mechanisms to ensure that decisions to suspend or dissolve PVOs are subject to independent review. Another proposal was to maintain the PVO Board as opposed to having the Registrar and that the PVO Board’s composition should have more members appointed by CSOs.
Clause 4
It was proposed that the CSOs themselves, through a creation of self-regulating National Council of PVOs, should convene the PVO Forum instead of the Registrar and that the proposed council should be the one to adopt its own structure and by-laws.
In terms of time for compliance with registration processes, it was proposed that the transitional period should be extended to 12 months instead of 30 days just like the ones provided for in Section 303 (9) of the Companies Act. Thus, allowing enough time for PVOs to comply. CSOs opined that the 30-day registration deadline was too short and may result in disqualification of some already operating NGOs. CSOs also complained that the Bill does not provide time limits within which the Registrar must determine application for PVO registration.
Another concern by CSOs was that the Bill was not clear on the registration requirements and registration fees to be paid and proposed that these should be clearly stated in the Bill.
Furthermore, a call was made that criminal sanctions, which is level 12- and one-year imprisonment should be removed and replaced with fair penalty such as paying fines.
Clause 6
The CSOs argued that there was no need for PVOs to apply to amend the particulars of registration where there are material changes relating to the Constitution and ownership. The proposal was that PVOs should not be required to register more than once, and the meaning of material change should be changed to mean a change in the composition of the board of the organisation and the objectives of a PVO. CSOs feared victimisation by the Registrar citing that he/she can approve or reject application. CSOs cited that international good practice demands that associations are not required to obtain permissions from authorities before revising their internal management structures or rules.
Clause 7
The provision in the Bill that appeals from the decision of the Registrar goes to the Minister who may uphold the Registrar’s decision or refer the decision back to the Registrar, was considered as giving the Registrar too much powers instead of referring the appeals to the High Court as the highest level of authority. The CSOs complained that there was no right to appeal thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the courts and the right to fair hearing. CSOs also proposed the establishment of a grievance and complaints committee comprising of representatives from government and CSOs where PVOs can lodge their complaints and concerns.
Clause 8
The public supported the clause, emphasising the need for PVOs to disclose the source of their funding to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and that such funds should come in through the central bank for monitoring purposes. However, some CSOs called for the need to define illegitimate and immoral sources of donations.
Clause 9
Some CSOs complained that this clause gives the Minister unfettered power to interfere in the internal management of PVOs, resulting in a violation of freedom of assembly. Another submission was that Clause 9 does not oblige the Minister to engage a representative sample of PVOs in risk assessments, thus violating Recommendation 8 of FATF.
Clause 10
It was submitted that it is not clear what supporting or opposing a political party or candidates entails and proposed that the provision should specifically prohibit financing campaigns and partisan political support. It was further proposed that the criminal sanctions, that of level 12 or one year imprisonment should be limited to payment of fines.
Clause 12
It was pointed out that the introduction of civil penalties, including personal liability and fines in USD, presents challenges and proposed the inclusion of an appeal mechanism to ensure that these penalties are subject to judicial oversight, protecting against arbitrary or unfair enforcement.
Committee Observations
The following are the Committee’s observations:
There were mixed feelings with regards to the Bill. Some members of the public were supporting the Bill to be passed as it is, some rejected the Bill whilst some were calling for amendments to some sections.
- Some members of the public were not fully aware of some provisions in the Bill, resulting in general contributions not relevant to the Bill.
- There were fears from CSOs and some members of the public that the Minister might use the powers given on Clause 9 of the Bill to punish or close the PVOs perceived to be supporting political activities resulting in loss of employment and humanitarian support.
- The public also feared that some NGOs, especially those in the humanitarian sector might fail to register within the stipulated period of 30 days thereby risking deregistration in the current face of El Nino induced drought.
- Some members of the public and CSOs were of the opinion that the PVO Amendment Bill was coming to remove all NGOs in Zimbabwe. However, the Committee believes that Government was mindful of the supportive role played by PVOs in assisting the disadvantaged members of society such as persons with disabilities, women, youth, children and the elderly and will not arbitrarily use the law to close genuine PVOs.
- There was a concern by CSOs that there was no right to appeal thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the courts and the right to fair hearing in that appeals from the decision of the Registrar goes to the Minister who may uphold the Registrar’s decision or refer the decision back to the Registrar instead of referring the appeals to the High Court.
Recommendations
The Committee, therefore, recommends that:
- The timeframe for registration of the PVOs should be extended to at least nine months to allow proper vetting and submission of all necessary paperwork from the PVOs.
- In terms of dealing with appeals from the decisions of the Registrar, the High Court should be the highest authority instead of the Registrar, to allow the right to appeal and the right to a fair hearing.
- The Bill should define and specify the political activities that PVOs should not support.
On the issue raised by NGOs on fears of victimisation and closure of some PVOs, the Committee recommends some collaboration between the Government and NGOs. I so submit Madam Speaker.
#StopThePVOBill
