Connect with us

Opinions

Is compulsory NGO registration a death kneel to activism?

Advocacy groups across Southern Africa fear laws could thwart their work

Published

on

Members of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LeGaBiBo) on Jan. 15, 2016, gather outside the Botswana Court of Appeals after their organization won legal recognition. (Photo courtesy of LeGaBiBo)

There is a rising trend of countries in the region enacting laws that compel all non-governmental organizations to register in order to operate and prohibit any operation by unregistered organizations. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation Eight requires that states, in order to remain in good standing, must increase monitoring and regulation of non-profit organizations through a risk-based system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. 

Most governments interpret this as “carte blanche” to compel all NPOs to register in order to operate, with legal measures enabling the government to monitor, and, in many cases, control these entities. Registration, in many contexts, comes with increased regulatory oversight, procedural operating requirements, and risks which often greatly increase operating costs for many associations. 

In many contexts, this not a mere administrative act but the legal requirements bear the risk of an association being denied registration at the discretion of the regulating authorities, many times for spurious or arbitrary reasons. This includes denial of registration for organizations deemed “immoral.” Organizations representing marginalized and criminalized populations like sexual and gender minorities or sex workers are likely to face significant difficulties in getting registered. 

For example, in Botswana, an LGBTI group was denied registration on morality grounds, and had to seek the intervention of the courts to be registered. The denial was based on the fact that same-sex acts were criminalized in Botswana. The courts, in the case of Attorney General of Botswana v. Rammoge and 19 Others, confirmed that equal enjoyment of human rights meant that everyone should be able to exercise the right to freedom of association, regardless of status, including sexual orientation. There is a similar situation in Malawi, where the refusal by the government to register an organization of LGBTIQ people on the same grounds is before the courts. 

The recently amended NGO Act in Malawi requires compulsory registration for all NPOs to be able to operate, with penalties for operating without registration that can be applied against every officer of the organization. In addition, registered organizations are required to submit an audit report annually; failure to do so can result in an organization being suspended or deregistered.

The Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO) Amendment Act of Zimbabwe, recently signed into law, amends the PVO Act to require the re-registration of all organizations in Zimbabwe that were previously operating as trusts or any other form of organization. These organizations must register as PVOs if they provide services to the public or receive public funding or donations. An application for registration (even of existing organizations) can be refused if the registrar decides that the organization’s activities are not in line with their stated objectives or that they do not comply with the requirements of the Act, which includes the receipt of money from “illegal” sources. Additionally, if a PVO intends to change its name or its objectives, it must make a new application for registration, which can also be denied. The operation of an unregistered PVO attracts criminal and civil sanctions for anyone in management. In terms of the law, even organizations that do not qualify for registration as PVOs can still be compelled by the minister to register if considered to be at high risk or vulnerable to terrorist financing. The regulating authorities (the registrar, NGO board, and the minister) wield immense, almost unchecked power including the power to deregister an organization and suspend and replace the governance of an NGO with their own appointees. 

Zambia has also proposed legislation to amend the NGO Act to include compulsory registration of all NGOs. The difference with the Zimbabwe PVO Amendment Act is that existing legally registered organizations are deemed registered under the proposed law. However, all organizations would be subject to a licensing requirement after five years. An organization whose activities are considered to be against the law can be denied a license. The law proposes that unlicensed organizations would not be allowed to operate in Zambia, with criminal sanctions for operating without a license. The registrar would have extensive powers to regulate an NGO, including suspension or deregistration. 

Amid all this excessive regulation, activists flounder. The most effective advocates are community advocates, as the adage “nothing about us without us” implies. Freedom of association, a fundamental right, has enabled communities to organize and advocate for the issues at heart, including human rights, healthcare, economic and social inclusion. It has also enabled them to participate in public processes and increased civil engagement. 

The levels of organization for communities differ, from community-based organizations to national, regional and international organizations, and their structures and needs are different. Their resource requirements are also different. Some CBOs are not even formally organized with employees or other organizational structures but can advocate for their communities, gather and sometimes raise resources. A rigid regulatory system for these, with rigorous auditing and reporting requirements, is likely to deplete the capacity for activism and not be sustainable financially. In addition, the excessive intrusion of the state into community or social groups is not in line with plural democratic or transformed societies. 

Regulation may be necessary in some instances, such as the handling and accountability of public funds and safeguarding of vulnerable communities, but a truly risk-based approach to regulation that does not impose onerous burdens or restrictions on civil society is needed. Additionally, the disproportionate focus on civil society for regulation regarding money laundering or terrorist financing is largely unnecessary. Claims that NPOs are particularly vulnerable to terrorist financing are highly exaggerated and do not justify singling them out for increased monitoring. Even the FATF has recognized the unintended effect of its Recommendation 8 being used as a pretext for draconian interference and issued revised guidelines that dissuade states from imposing regulations that hinder the important and necessary activities of NPOs for society. Other countries like South Africa, whilst complying with tightening up NPO regulation, have applied a risk-based approach to the registration and regulation of NPOs. 

In conclusion, current and emerging risks with illicit financial flows cannot be ignored as they affect society in general, including government and commercial entities. However, adequate laws and regulations can be enforced to combat money laundering and terrorist financing without risking the life and structure of activism by forcing rigid regulations. 

Tambudzai Gonese-Manjonjo is the deputy director of the Southern Africa Litigation Center.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Second ‘lavender scare’ is harming our veterans. We know how to fix it

Out in National Security has built Trans Veterans State and Local Policy Toolkit

Published

on

(Photo by Cheryl Casey via Bigstock)

Seventy years after the first “lavender scare” drove LGBTQ Americans from public service, a second version is taking shape. Executive directives and administrative reviews have targeted transgender servicemembers and veterans, producing a new wave of quiet separations and lost benefits.

The policy language is technical, but the result is personal. Veterans who served honorably now face disrupted healthcare, delayed credentials, or housing barriers that no act of Congress ever required. Once again, Americans who met every standard of service are being told that their identity disqualifies them from stability.

Out in National Security built the Trans Veterans State and Local Policy Toolkit to change that. The toolkit gives state and local governments a practical path to repair harm through three measurable actions.

First, continuity of care. States can keep veterans covered by adopting presumptive Medicaid eligibility, aligning timelines with VA enrollment, and training providers in evidence-based gender-affirming care following the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 8.

Second, employment, and licensing. Governors and boards can recognize Department of Defense credentials, expedite licensing under existing reciprocity compacts, and ensure nondiscrimination in state veterans’ employment statutes.

Third, housing stability. States can designate transgender-veteran housing liaisons, expand voucher access, and enforce fair-housing protections that already exist in law.

Each step can be taken administratively within 90 days and requires no new federal legislation. The goal is straightforward: small, state-level reforms that yield rapid, measurable improvement in veterans’ daily lives.

The toolkit was introduced during a Veterans Week event hosted by the Center for American Progress, where federal and state leaders joined Out in National Security to highlight the first wave of state agencies adopting its recommendations. The discussion underscored how targeted, administrative reforms can strengthen veterans’ healthcare, employment, and housing outcomes without new legislation. Full materials and implementation resources are now available at outinnationalsecurity.org/public-policy/toolkit, developed in partnership with Minority Veterans of America, the Modern Military Association of America, SPARTA Pride, and the Human Rights Campaign.

These are technical fixes, but they carry moral weight. They reaffirm a basic democratic promise: service earns respect, not suspicion.

As a policy professional who has worked with veterans across the country, I see this moment as a test of civic integrity. The measure of a democracy is not only who it allows to serve but how it treats them afterward.

The second “lavender scare” will end when institutions at every level decide that inclusion is an obligation, not an exception. The toolkit offers a way to begin.

For more information or to access the toolkit once it is public, visit outinnationalsecurity.org/toolkit.

Lucas F. Schleusener is the CEO of Out in National Security.

Continue Reading

Opinions

The far right’s bill mill

Fringe movement matures into something far more muscular

Published

on

(Photo by jat306/Bigstock)

For years, the far right has relied on a familiar infrastructure to wage its political battles: coordinated legal networks, back-channeled money, and an ever-growing pipeline of model legislation that moves quietly from one statehouse to another. What used to be a fringe ecosystem of activist lawyers has matured into something far more muscular. Today, the attacks on LGBTQ Americans—especially transgender people—are not random. They are designed, drafted, and deployed by a disciplined constellation of groups that understand how to move legislation with precision. And if Democrats, civil rights advocates, and national LGBTQ organizations continue treating each bill as an isolated outrage rather than a unified offensive, this machine will keep outpacing them.

Most Americans have never heard of outfits like the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Principles Project, the Leadership Institute’s law arm, or the network of state-based policy shops that orbit the Heritage Foundation. But these entities now function as the shadow authors of state legislation. The anti-trans sports bans that appeared in more than 20 states did not arise organically; they were cloned from drafts circulated by ADF attorneys. The same is true for bills restricting gender-affirming care, limiting name and pronoun accommodations in schools, or expanding “religious liberty” carve-outs that allow discrimination against LGBTQ employees or customers. Legislators often change a few words, swap in a local sponsor, and reintroduce the same provisions session after session — giving the impression of momentum when, in reality, only a handful of ideologues are writing the nation’s culture-war script.

The operational model is simple: produce a bill, partner with a state-level think tank, recruit a legislator to introduce it, and provide legal testimony to defend it. But the strategic sophistication lies upstream. These groups have spent years cultivating relationships with attorneys general, state solicitors, and conservative judges who are sympathetic to their worldview. They draft legislation with litigation in mind, anticipating which language will survive scrutiny before the federal courts they have worked diligently to remake. They treat policy, politics, and jurisprudence as a seamless ecosystem; meanwhile, LGBTQ advocates are forced to fight on three fronts at once, often with smaller budgets and no comparable network of state-by-state affiliates.

What is most striking now is the acceleration. Bills that used to be test-driven in one or two states are being introduced in a dozen simultaneously. After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, the same legal strategists pushing abortion bans pivoted almost immediately toward restricting trans health care, framing puberty blockers and hormone therapy as “sterilization.” The rhetorical shift was not accidental. It was a deliberate legal construction designed to open the door to future Fourteenth Amendment challenges, should the movement secure a case capable of reaching the Supreme Court. This is not simply a legislative fight; it is the groundwork for long-term judicial warfare.

And yet, Democrats and even national LGBTQ groups often treat these measures as if they were spontaneous outbursts of local prejudice. That is politically naïve. The reason similar bills appear in Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Kansas, and Ohio at the same time is because they originate from the same set of PDFs stored on the same servers belonging to the same legal networks. The far right has embraced an industrial model of anti-LGBTQ policymaking: mass production, rapid deployment, and coordinated amplification by media channels that echo the same talking points across state lines.

The consequence is that the burden falls on queer people themselves—especially trans people—to respond to an avalanche of bills, hearings, lawsuits, and administrative changes that no individual or small advocacy team can fully track. When you have a network of attorneys feeding language to legislators, drafting amicus briefs, and preparing future litigation strategies in advance, you create an asymmetry that is difficult to counter with reactive press releases or one-off legal challenges. This imbalance of power is not about public opinion, which still supports LGBTQ equality by wide margins. It is about institutional positioning. The far right has placed its lawyers where the pressure points are: in state AG offices, in coordinated legislative caucuses, in judicial clerkships, and in the nonprofit legal trenches where issue fights are shaped long before the public hears about them.

There is a path forward, but it requires abandoning the old model of treating each bill as a separate emergency. LGBTQ organizations need a unified, long-range strategy that mirrors the discipline of the groups attacking them. That means state-by-state legal surveillance, rapid drafting of counter-model legislation, formal partnerships with progressive state AGs, and a standing litigation coalition capable of anticipating—not just responding to—legal threats. It also means investing in local leaders who understand that these bills are symptoms of a national machine, not quirks of their hometown politics.

What’s at stake here is nothing less than the architecture of civil rights in the United States. The far right is attempting to rewrite the legal landscape through volume and repetition, hoping courts will eventually treat these contrived bills as reflections of a shifting national consensus. They are betting that if they introduce enough legislation, in enough states, for enough years, the judiciary will reinterpret LGBTQ equality not as a settled constitutional principle but as a contested social question that can be narrowed or rolled back. Their ultimate goal is not just to restrict trans rights today but to lay the doctrinal groundwork for limiting LGBTQ protections for a generation.

The community can still win this fight, but only if it sees the battlefield clearly. These bills are not local skirmishes—they are coordinated acts of legal engineering. And it is time the pro-equality movement built an equally coordinated system to match them.


Isaac Amend is a writer based in the D.C. area. He is a transgender man and was featured in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He serves on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Contact him on Instagram at @isaacamend 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Everything is Everything

Transformer’s 21st Annual Benefit Art Auction & Gala at the LINE DC
November 19, 2025

Published

on

In Washington, DC, art has never existed in isolation—it thrives where people gather and create. Art isn’t an accessory to the city’s identity—it’s foundational to it. This city was designed by artists, built by craftsmen, and has been continuously shaped by creative vision for more than two centuries. While other American cities grew organically around commerce or geography, Washington was imagined first, drawn by hand, and constructed as a deliberate artistic expression of democratic ideals. The result is a living gallery where public art doesn’t just reflect our history; it actively shapes how we understand citizenship, memory, and identity. 

For 23 years, Transformer has been a cornerstone of DC’s contemporary art scene, committed to uplifting emerging and underrepresented artists who challenge boundaries and engage audiences with new experimental artistic concepts. On November 22, 2025, Transformer will host Everything is Everything, our 21st Annual Benefit Art Auction & Gala at the LINE DC, a night dedicated to celebrating the power of connection through art, performance, and community. 

Everything is Everything is an extension of our non-profit organization’s cutting-edge vision, bringing together artists across different mediums, aesthetics, and walks of life. This philosophy embraces interconnectedness: where art, identity, and community are a part of the same living fabric. The gala brings together hundreds of people to celebrate art & artists, featuring over 140+ artworks in a public exhibition available for silent bidding. Guests also enjoy our innovative Artist Activated Experiences Lounge, featuring immersive installations by DC based queer artists Bumper, Katie Magician, Div0id, JaxKnife Complex, Stitches DC, Hennessey and Kunj.

In a time when queer and drag performers face renewed cultural and legislative attacks, Everything is Everything affirms that freedom of expression is not optional—it’s essential. Our “Celebration of DC Club Kids” pays tribute to DC’s legendary Club Kids and nightlife culture—those radiant spaces that have long nurtured queer creativity, self-expression, and freedom. Produced at the Gala in collaboration with queer artist collective haus of bambi, this performance honors our city’s history while celebrating the diversity and creativity that will continue to shape its future.  Everything is Everything culminates in a show-stopping performance by iconic New York City based performance artist, cabaret singer, and drag artist Joey Arias.

As Transformer’s Everything is Everything Gala Committee, we’ve experienced firsthand how artists in DC transform spaces, challenge norms, and build community. The Gala is a celebration of that creativity and resilience. It is also a crucial act of support: proceeds from the Everything is Everything Benefit Art Auction & Gala directly supports artists while sustaining Transformer’s year-round exhibitions and programs that elevate emerging artists and arts leaders within DC and beyond. In doing so, Everything is Everything ensures that experimental and inclusive artistic practice, particularly of queer, trans, and BIPOC artists, continues to thrive.

Because in DC, art isn’t just something we look at—it’s something we live, share, and fight to protect.

Purchase tickets to Everything is Everything, Transformer’s Annual Benefit Art Auction & Gala at onecau.se/everythingiseverything. Learn more about Transformer’s mission at www.transformerdc.org.

  • Transformer’s Everything is Everything Gala Committee: Allana D’Amico, Sondra Fein, Theresa Nielson, Jennifer Sakai, Christopher Addison, Monica Alford, Samantha Dean, Samira Farmer, Carole Feld, Celina Gerbic, Ally Helmers, Allison Marvin, Marissa McBride, Tom Noll, Crystal Patterson, Victoria Reis, Dorothy Stein, Emily Strulson, Gregg Tourville, José Alberto Uclés, and Hanna Thompson
Continue Reading

Popular