VZCZCXRO0343
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHLS #0887/01 2150933
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 030933Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY LUSAKA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4725
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORP 0021

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 LUSAKA 000887 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV EAID ZA
SUBJECT: ZAMBIAN NGO BILL--CIVIL SOCIETY AND DONOR CONCERNS 
 
LUSAKA 00000887  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  An NGO Bill that the Zambian government presented 
to Parliament on July 17 has met significant opposition from civil 
society. NGO representatives noted they were not consulted in the 
drafting process and raised concerns about the amount of power the 
Bill provides to the government over NGO activities. Donor community 
representatives expressed concerns about the proposed Bill to the 
Minister of Justice on July 31, and he responded that he was willing 
to consider their detailed and constructive suggestions. The 
Ambassador raised the possibility that the Bill might affect 
Millennium Challenge Account governance indicator assessments.   End 
summary. 
 
---------- 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶2. (U) Since 1997 Zambian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have 
advocated for a separate law that distinguishes NGO registrations 
from other organizations like clubs, churches, and political 
parties. Currently, registration of all these organizations falls 
under the Zambian Societies Act, managed by the Ministry of Home 
Affairs. In 2000, the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) 
attempted to put forth an NGO bill to "register and regulate all 
NGOs in Zambia." This bill was met with significant opposition from 
civil society and it was dropped. 
 
------------------- 
Recent Developments 
------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) On July 17, Minister of Justice, George Kunda presented to 
Parliament a Non-Governmental Organizations Bill "as a message from 
the President."  Despite the fact that NGOs have been seeking an NGO 
law, no one from civil society or the public had participated in the 
development of the Bill before July 17. The Parliamentary Committee 
on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights, and Gender Matters is 
reviewing the Bill and will make recommendations to Members of 
Parliament on August 3, 2007. This period from July 17 to August 3 
is the only time the GRZ has given the public to address any 
components of the Bill and they must do so by soliciting an 
appointment with the Committee members. 
 
¶4. (U) According to press reports, the GRZ argued that the current 
Bill is necessary because, although the government is always held 
accountable, NGOs do not properly account for the money they receive 
or for their expenditures. The Minister of Information and 
Broadcasting, Mike Mulongoti, stated that it is "necessary to have a 
legal framework to regulate their conduct, because some of them seem 
to have been set up specifically to oppose the government in 
everything." Mulongoti also noted, "After all, even the money they 
[NGOs] use to fund their activities is taxpayer's money elsewhere, 
just like we use Zambian taxpayers' money." 
 
¶5. (U) The Bill establishes an NGO Board (funded by Parliamentary 
allocations and managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs) that will 
be composed of ten part-time members (occupying three year 
positions), all appointed by the Minister.  Only two positions will 
be appointed by the Minister to represent "the diverse areas of 
interest of the non-governmental organisations." Among other 
functions, the Board will "regulate the work, and the area of work, 
of non-governmental organisations operating in Zambia," review 
quarterly and annual NGO reports, and establish guidelines for 
auditing NGO's accounts. The Board will also advise the GRZ on NGOs' 
activities, "provide policy guidelines... for harmonizing their 
activities to the national development plan for Zambia," and 
"approve the code of conduct...for the self regulation [of NGOs] and 
their operations in Zambia." Furthermore, the Board only requires a 
quorum of six to act (meaning decisions could be completely GRZ-led) 
and has the power to fine and/or imprison up to five years for 
certain offenses, or to even suspend or cancel an NGO's Certificate 
of Registration -- denying its authorization to operate in Zambia. 
 
¶6. (SBU) This Bill will effectively render NGOs subject to the GRZ's 
interests, which may conflict with donor interests. It gives a 
significant amount of power to the Board to reject new NGOs or shut 
down existing ones. For example, the Board can reject an application 
if an NGO's "proposed activities or procedures... are not in the 
national interest." 
 
¶7. (U) The Bill requires that NGOs reveal their funding sources and 
it also gives the Minister power to determine the proportion of 
funds an NGO can use towards its administrative costs. Additionally, 
it assigns the NGO Board with the responsibility to distribute the 
assets and liabilities of any NGO that ceases to exist. It also 
states that the "Minister is empowered to set the terms and 
conditions for the importation and use of any equipment required by 
an NGO for its activities." International NGOs with activities in 
Zambia will not be able to operate without registering under this 
Act. 
 
---------------------- 
 
LUSAKA 00000887  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
Civil Society Response 
---------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) The Zambia Council for Social Development (ZCSD) took the 
lead in organizing a civil society response. ZCSD, the Civil Society 
for Poverty Reduction (CSPR) and the Non-governmental Organizations' 
Coordinating Council (NGOCC), an NGO umbrella group, made a joint 
statement opposing the Bill on the basis of its non-inclusive 
drafting process. The independent daily Post newspaper published 
this statement on Sunday, July 15.  The ZCSD held a meeting on July 
19, which about 50 people attended (approximately 10 from the donor 
community; the remainder from NGOs and international NGOs) and 
discussed a strategy and work plan, as well as the need for a clear, 
focused message dealing with the critical issues of the Bill and not 
just the process of how the Bill was developed (without consultation 
or input from civil society). Furthermore, the NGO community 
recognized that it will be competing for attention from the media, 
the public, and MPs, with the ongoing debate on the constitutional 
reform process. 
 
¶9. (U) On July 27, the ZCSD shared a legal response addressing 
specific clauses of the Bill with civil society as well as the donor 
community. ZCSD presented the response to the parliamentary 
committee reviewing the Bill on July 30. In addition to the issues 
of contention highlighted above (paras 5, 6 and 7), the response 
from ZCSD points out that the Bill calls for the Board to audit NGOs 
with no provision for an auditor or accountant to be on the Board 
and that the Bill omits the terms "human rights" and "advocacy" from 
the definition of NGO activities. ZCSD's legal response concludes 
that the Bill "does not create any facilitative process in the work 
of NGOs but rather is just a regulatory framework for the operations 
of NGOs in the country." 
 
¶10. (SBU) On Saturday July 28, the ZCSD organized a public street 
concert to raise awareness about the Bill and collect signatures for 
a petition. Members of civil society also picketed at Parliament on 
July 31. Leadership of other NGOs such as the YWCA, Transparency 
International and Southern African Centre for the Constructive 
Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD) told EmbOffs that they presented 
position papers and/or recommendations to the parliamentary 
committee reviewing the Bill on July 30. The recommendations made by 
the YWCA were very pointed and thorough. Among a list of 20 
recommendations, the YWCA proposed that the NGO Board require a 
quorum of "50 percent NGOs and 50 percent government," that the 
Board only request annual (vice quarterly) reports from NGOs, that 
the ZCSD fill the role of the Zambian Congress of NGOs proposed by 
the Bill, and that the NGO Board not have the power to determine an 
NGO's administrative spending since "this is always agreed upon with 
the various cooperating partners." 
 
-------------- 
Donor Response 
-------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) On July 26, senior representatives from the donor 
community met at UNDP offices in Lusaka to discuss the NGO Bill and 
prepare a strategy for a July 31 briefing with the Minister of 
Justice, George Kunda. Discussion focused on issues that need to be 
clarified within the Bill; the Bill's problematic areas; the 
negative repercussions the Bill may have in the international arena 
for assessment of GRZ's levels of accountability, democracy, and 
governance; and the communication strategy to be used when meeting 
with Kunda. The donor group selected three representatives to meet 
with Kunda on July 31: Ambassador Martinez, the Irish Ambassador 
(representing the EU presidency on behalf of Portugal) and the UN 
Resident Coordinator. 
 
¶12. (SBU) At the meeting, Kunda was joined by Zambian Attorney 
General Malila, along with several staffers from the Ministry's 
Parliamentary Committee (who are working with parliamentarians on 
revisions to the draft language). The nearly ninety-minute meeting 
was frank, yet cordial.  The three donor reps presented many of the 
same concerns raised by civil society -- with special emphasis on 
the need to rethink the composition of the NGO Board, the 
inappropriate involvement of government in the administrative 
operations of NGOs, and the unnecessary reporting burdens that the 
Bill imposes. 
 
¶13. (SBU) The donor representatives stressed that the ramifications 
of the Bill went beyond a national vision for regulating NGOs and 
could have a negative impact on many of the indicators used by the 
UN and EU member states, and also by the USG, to measure Zambia's 
progress on governance issues. (Note:  the Minister and the Attorney 
General paid particular attention when the Ambassador spoke of how 
an overly restrictive NGO Bill could negatively impact Zambia's MCA 
indicators -- even reading out several indicator descriptions from 
the "Ruling Justly Category"  to make her point. End note.) 
 
¶14. (SBU) Both the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General 
thanked the donor reps repeatedly for raising many issues that they 
said had, in some instances, simply been overlooked, drafted 
 
LUSAKA 00000887  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
incorrectly, or needed more consultation.  They said they would 
"take on board" and seriously consider the following suggestions: 
 
- the composition of the NGO Board should be equally divided between 
government and NGO representatives (five and five, rather than eight 
and two), with a quorum of six required to authorize any decisions 
by the Board. 
 
- the Minister of Home Affairs should not have the authority to 
determine what percentage of an NGO's budget is to be devoted to 
administrative costs, if the NGO receives no funding from the GRZ. 
 
- the GRZ should continue to allow NGOs to submit annual reports and 
not require quarterly reports since the Board would be absolutely 
unable to cope with examining nearly 50,000 reports from 
approximately 12,000 NGOs. 
 
- the Bill should not prescribe deregistration for an NGO that loses 
its paper registration certificate as all records of any NGO's 
registration would be available electronically and a duplicate could 
be easily issued. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶15.  (SBU) The underlying tone of the Bill is defensive.  The GRZ 
seems most concerned with regulating and controlling civil society, 
in contrast to the 2000 Malawi NGO Act, which seeks "to provide for 
the rights and obligations of Non-Governmental Organisations in 
Malawi, to promote the development and values of strong independent 
civil society..." Furthermore, the timing of the NGO Bill 
(introduced in the midst of debate over the constitutional reform 
process) and the lack of consultation with civil society lead us to 
wonder if this Bill may have other motives. President Mwanawasa's 
recent attack on NGOs in early July, in which he stated that civil 
society should not be allowed to "hijack" the constitution-making 
process, echoes the defensive tone of the NGO Bill. 
 
¶16. (SBU) In response to concerns over the manner in which the Bill 
has been pushed through quickly without consulting civil society, 
Kunda stated that "intention of the law was not to gag NGOs." Both 
the Minister and Attorney General insisted that, due to the 
legislative calendar, if the Bill is not passed by August 10, it 
will lapse, with the possible result that it would not be 
reintroduced this year or even next year. Given the prevalent 
bureaucratic inertia surrounding most government programs, in theory 
this sense of urgency is refreshing. We will be much more confident 
in the GRZ's good intentions if it changes the Bill in response to 
concerns raised by donors and civil society. 
 
MARTINEZ