Opinions
Is compulsory NGO registration a death kneel to activism?
Advocacy groups across Southern Africa fear laws could thwart their work
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.
Opinions
Pentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
A man who needs a screening program to feel like a warrior is telling on himself
Last week, the Secretary of Defense posted a video to announce what he called the “High-T Department of War.” In it, Pete Hegseth ordered annual testosterone screening for every service member over 30 and offered testosterone therapy to those who want it, all in the name of keeping American warriors, in his words, on the “leading edge of lethality.” A hormone, he explained, is part of “the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”
I have spent years writing about masculinity, so I know a performance when I see one. But this one is different, because at the exact moment Hegseth is prescribing testosterone to the men, his department is throwing other Americans out of uniform for taking it.
Here is the contradiction, and I promise I am not the one straining to find it. Since early 2025, the administration has worked to remove transgender troops from the military. One of its stated reasons, laid out in the executive order and in the government’s own court filings, is that these service members require ongoing medical treatment the military cannot easily sustain. Hormone therapy, the argument goes, means cost, monitoring, lab work, and stretches of non-deployability. A soldier who needs a standing prescription, the logic runs, is a burden the force cannot carry.
Then the same department launched a program to put a standing hormone prescription in the pocket of any man over 30 who wants one.
You do not have to take my word for the hypocrisy. A federal judge has already put it on the record. Last Wednesday, in the case challenging the transgender ban, Judge Ana Reyes took formal notice of the new testosterone program and ordered the government to explain how the very same class of treatment can be readiness-enhancing for one group of troops and disqualifying for another. It is the question at the center of the case now. Reyes has been skeptical of the medical argument from the start. Last year she pointed out that the military spent roughly $41 million on Viagra in a single year, and called transgender care, by comparison, “not even a rounding error.”
That is the tell. It was never really about the medicine. Testosterone is testosterone. The prescriptions, the monitoring, the lab work, the deployability questions are identical whether the person filling the vial is a trans man or a cisgender colonel chasing his youth. The only thing that changes is who is holding it. When the man taking the hormone fits the picture of a warrior, the treatment becomes “lethality.” When the man taking it is transgender, the identical treatment becomes a fatal risk to readiness. The medicine did not change. The identity did.
I want to be fair, because the argument only works if it is honest. The government has other claims in the case that a court has not yet resolved, about surgeries, about facilities, about unit cohesion, and it insists that cisgender men on testosterone and transgender men are simply “not similarly situated.” Those arguments can be debated on their merits. But the medical one, the claim that hormone therapy itself is too much for the military to manage, is the one Hegseth’s own policy just detonated. You cannot brand testosterone a warrior’s birthright on Monday and a disqualifying liability on Tuesday and expect a judge, or the rest of us, not to notice.
And notice what the whole spectacle is actually selling. A “Department of War” rebrand. A hormone reframed as a weapon. A Secretary who mocks “dudes in dresses” while rolling out mandatory bloodwork so the men can optimize their manhood by the milligram. This is not a medical policy. It is a theory of masculinity, the same tired one, that a man is a number on a lab report and a posture for the camera. It arrives, not coincidentally, as the administration moves to loosen testosterone prescribing across the country, turning manhood into a supplement you can top off.
I have known a lot of strong men. My father crossed an ocean as a laborer to build a life; the strongest men I was raised by never once measured themselves in a vial. Real strength was never a hormone level, and the men who most need to announce their lethality are, with remarkable consistency, the ones least sure of it.
The House declined last week to write the transgender ban into law, so it still rests on nothing sturdier than executive will and a medical excuse. That excuse just ran out of testosterone. A man who needs a screening program and a war-department rebrand to feel like a warrior is telling on himself. The rest of us should say so out loud.
Dimitrios Aletras is a queer, first-generation Greek-American writer and survivor-advocate, with work published in Salon, The Advocate, and the Reading Eagle.
Opinions
Trump tries to scare Americans into not voting
Will he deploy military to the polls in November?
By saying we cannot trust our elections, the sick, old, demented, felon, in the White House is trying to scare Americans into not voting. He, and his faithful fascist appointees, dragged out old documents, already proven to be false, to scare people. He revisited claims that threats, and interference from China and Venezuela, impacted our elections in 2020, all of which have already been shown were not implemented effectively in any way.
Even a few Republicans are saying this is nonsense, reminding people the felon is making claims the only elections we can’t trust, are the ones that he lost. Those Republicans who dare to speak up, and are running for office, have said he is making it harder for them by focusing on this BS, and doing nothing about the future. We must remember the only election he lost, was when he was president during the election. He won when Democrats were in office in 2016 under Obama, and in 2024 when Biden was president.
We can only hope if he moves further with this, which some think he will, the courts will tell him no. There are some who believe he will try to call a ‘national emergency’ and deploy the military to the polls.
The only effective response to his lies is very clear. Democrats and independents must come out in huge numbers in November, and vote for Democrats, up and down the ballot. By doing this they say to the felon, we believe our elections are fair, we trust the process, and we will win big enough so there is no question about the results.
All anyone has to do to hear the felon lie, is to watch his mouth move. Every time he opens it, another lie comes out. He promised the nation, among other things, he would lower gas prices, lower grocery prices, lower rent prices, lower inflation, and even more important to the world, he promised the United States would not go to war. So, what we got instead, from him and his fascist cohorts, and sycophants in Congress, are higher gas prices, higher grocery prices, higher rents, higher inflation, and an expensive, in terms of both money, and human life and suffering, an illegal war with no end in sight. Even his own Secretary of State recently said, “the initial U.S. operation in Iran, Epic Fury, is over. The U.S. was now focused on Project Freedom. This is the name of the operation to get ships moving through the Strait of Hormuz again.” Something that was the case before Trump began this absurd and illegal war.
I applaud those media outlets that didn’t give Trump free air time to lie to the American people, despite the threats he made to have the FCC punish them for it. Kudos to those who had the guts to say we will not be a party to this, and went further, debunking the lies he told in the speech. The felon can continue to threaten those who call him out, but I believe they will win in the end, because the American people will not let him silence all the ‘free’ press. His fellow billionaires might take over some of it, like has been done with CBS, but the truth will come out.
In his continuing efforts to control elections, Trump has ousted members of a bipartisan federal election commission, the Election Assistance Commission, that resisted his efforts to require would-be voters to have extra documentation of their U.S. citizenship before registering. The commission distributes federal grants to states, oversees the testing of voting systems, and maintains the national voter registration form. He did this to get the Congress to pass his ‘Save Act’ which would make it harder for legal voters to vote. But congress once again voted against this after his speech, and there aren’t the votes to pass it. But the felon has shown fairness is not in his quiver when he plays any game. He cheats, and screws, as many people as possible in his business dealings, as long as he can make money. He is now doing the same to the American people.
Again, it is my belief in the end, the American people will win. Trump will be shown to be the loser he is, and our democracy will survive.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Opinions
No Pride without Disability Pride
Anti-ableism must become part of the foundations of queer activism
On Saturday, June 20, Capital Pride hosted the Pride Parade through the heart of Washington, D.C. I broke my foot just a couple days before and couldn’t attend, but beyond my mobility, Pride celebrations have always been difficult as a multiply disabled, queer person. As someone who is autistic with heat and sensory sensitivities, and autoimmune conditions, I also want to be part of Pride celebrations, to feel part of and be in community with others, but it is rare that Pride celebrations — not just Pride marches — are accessible to me.
Back in 2022, I wrote a piece for The Unwritten issuing a call to action: “it’s time to make all queer spaces accessible” after a woman in a wheelchair was denied entry to my favorite — and one of the few remaining — lesbian bars A League Of Her Own. Back in 2022 when I had just moved to Washington, D.C. for graduate school, the bar became my queer safe space where I watched Willow Pill’s win on season 14 of “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” Pill, who openly discussed having cystinosis, a rare genetic disorder that causes the build-up of the amino acid cystine on the show, was the first person who openly discussed how being disabled affected the way she was able to share and experience her queerness. Because of her disability, she admitted that she would have to quit performing drag much sooner than her fellow queens.
Yet four years after I published the piece, little has changed. Many Pride celebrations remain inaccessible to people who use mobility aids, have sensory or heat sensitivities, or require ASL interpretation or audio description to participate. When queer, disabled people ask for these services, ask for events that include everyone, we are met with excuses about expense and convenience, about serving the majority of community members rather than all — and invitations to future events that never end up planned or taking place.
For many queer, disabled people like me, this sends a very clear message about whose presence is valued and prioritized at Pride celebrations and it is part of larger systems of racism, ableism, and transphobia that are solidified when people participating in Pride forget the event’s roots. While many people pointed out that corporations and cities cancelled their participation and events this year, it’s important to recognize that Pride was never about pinkwashing, was never about getting free rainbow fans in the street or catering events to a socio-political status quo. Pride began as a protest against police brutality.
When we remember that history, it becomes clearer than ever that events focused on our visibility must be accessible. In the United States today, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have hurt and even killed disabled people during the arrest and detention of immigrants and people of color. Autistic and individuals with cognitive disabilities, especially neurodivergent people of color, are at much higher risk of being hurt or even killed by the police, and disabled people are increasingly at risk for sexual violence in institutions and when living in their communities. Pride began as a fight against state-sanctioned violence.
If people want Pride to remain true to its roots and honor the people who paved the way like Marsha P. Johnson who herself was disabled, we need Pride to be accessible.
While I can recommend that people who are set to host Pride celebrations next year arrange shaded and cool space for people to sit, rest and recover, provide water and food for people to sip and snack on to keep their energy and blood sugar up, offer sensory support including earplugs and headphones, and access services like ASL interpretation, audio description, and captioning for events, this is not enough.
It can’t just be about tacking on accessible services to an already planned event, it has to involve electing disabled queer people to Pride leadership boards, thinking about accessibility from the very beginning when we envision events for the LGBTQ+ community, and incorporating anti-ableist action into queer protesting. Anti-ableism (and anti-racism and xenophobia) has to become part of the very foundations of our queer activism before we can make changes that push for our collective liberation. And queer people’s and disabled people’s liberations are inextricably linked—both are rooted in bodily autonomy, access to healthcare, and right to love and marry as we chose (today, many disabled people are denied access to marriage without losing lifesaving medical care).
And it’s not just disabled queer folxs who benefit from accessible events. Everyone can benefit from events that focus on preserving and protecting our bodies and energy.
How many people use captions when they watch a show, or could use a shaded, cool, sensory-friendly space at Pride amid all the sounds and smells of the parades and festivals? How many people could use access to food, water, and chairs to sit or mobility aids so that they are not hurting the following day? How many more people would show up, would lend their voices to the fight for gender-affirming care, for trans rights, if the protests we organized and participated in were accessible? And how would the visible inclusion of disabled queer and trans people change our collective perceptions and goals of intersectional activism–knowing that not everyone can access gender affirming care because of their disabilities?
Making events accessible isn’t just about including disabled folxs, it’s about crafting spaces that serve and uplift everybody and all bodies in our fight for liberation. For disabled people who have long been infantalized and desexualized (while at the same time being fetishized and facing increased sexual violence), making Pride accessible is about affirming that disabled people are whole people who also have rich, diverse sexualities and gender expressions.
And let’s be clear, it’s not up to disabled queer folx to do this work for the community. For too long, disabled people are asked to educate their peers and superiors on accommodations and accessibility services, on what anti-ableist action looks like. It’s the responsibility of a community that itself has long been marginalized to recognize the ways in which ableism is interwoven into the very power systems that disenfranchise and deny the rights of queer and trans people and educate themselves. Along with creating pathways to leadership uplifting queer disabled folxs and planning events that are accessible by design, this is about queer and trans people educating themselves in and committing to anti-abelist action.
If Pride is truly about protesting state-sanctioned violence against us, against all marginalized communities, it cannot involve events that are inaccessible, events that routinely exclude a part of the community. There’s a reason that Disability Pride Month is scheduled the month after Pride month in the U.S. — it should be a continuation of protests fighting for the liberation of all bodies, rather than some.
Emma Cieslik is a D.C.-based museum worker and public historian.
