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.
Today nearly 99% of us watch wars on television. We see news reports, and watch bombs exploding and people dying, somewhere else. The only people actually involved are those who volunteered to serve in the military, and the national guard. I am sure most of them didn’t join to fight illegal wars like the one the felon in the White House is waging in Iran. But I respect them, and their willingness to serve our country.
But we are in Iran, and the felon is now asking Congress for $200 billion more for this war. We have been spending over a billion dollars a day. Who is paying for this? Right now, no one. We are simply adding it to the national debt, for our children to worry about. I propose a 5 or 10% surtax on every person, to cover the cost of this illegal war. Just have it added to your tax bill. If Congress passed such a surtax, I am sure we would already be out of Iran, as people would rise up to stop this illegal and unnecessary war very quickly.
I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and what we did to try to end it. It took time, but the people spoke. I did not serve, but unlike the felon in the White House, was willing to. I got my draft notice, along with a subway token, and reported to Whitehall street in NYC. It was as the Arlo Guthrie song, “Alice’s Restaurant,” said it would be. I got there at 7 a.m. and at 3 p.m. was told they wouldn’t take me because of my bad knee, sending me home with my 1Y designation. My friends had given me a going away party the night before, and my mom cried. So, it was a little embarrassing when my friends found I was still home. But my mom was happy and cried again.
I had been to anti-war demonstrations in D.C. in front of the DOJ, and got tear gassed. I demonstrated in London, in Russel Square, in front of the American embassy. While so many more were involved in that war because of the draft, we knew then if a 5% surtax had been levied, it would have ended much faster. Seems we never learn.
Today there is no draft, and no surtax. It is taking a while for people to recognize the felon who opposes any help for people to pay for their healthcare, easily asks for the $200 billion in funds for a totally unnecessary war. He closed USAID, which showed the United States in a positive light, helping people around the world, and that agency’s budget was only $25 billion. On top of not asking Americans to pay for this illegal war, he is giving tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, adding more to the national debt. What is the definition of insanity? Today it is clearly having voted for, and still supporting, the felon in the White House.
To make things worse and give us even less chance to stop his destruction of our democracy, the felon is trying to make it harder to vote. Millions of women who changed their names for marriage will not have a birth certificate with their current name on it, or a passport with their current name, allowing them to vote if the felon has his way. Reality is less than 50% of Americans even have a passport. The fact the Constitution gives states the right to set voting procedures, isn’t deterring the felon and his fascist cohorts, from trying to do it. He is doing it while we are losing American lives, the lives of heroes, who he has fighting a war he would have never signed up to fight himself. He is running it from the gold-leaf painted Oval Office, and from Mar-a-Lago, where he is golfing. He is a racist, sexist, homophobic, POS, working with the war criminal in Israel, causing a renewed spate of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and possibly creating World War III.
If you care about the future of the United States, you must stand up and speak out. We must defeat every Republican sycophant of his in the midterms — it’s the only way to let the felon know that we will not put up with his shit anymore. His grifting, and that of his family and appointees, must end. We the people, must not let him destroy 250 years of democracy, because he thinks he is a king. We fought a king once before and won. We will defeat him too. We will not let the felon implement the rest of Project 2025 and will take his name off everything he illegally plastered it on. He will be relegated to the trash heap of history, where he belongs, and we will reclaim our democracy for the next 250 years.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Opinions
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
New administrative barriers pose threat to voting rights
In Washington, debates over voting rights usually arrive loudly — through court rulings, protests, or sweeping legislation that captures national attention.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, now under debate in Congress, may reshape voting access in a quieter way — through paperwork. The bill would require Americans registering to vote in federal elections to present documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. Supporters argue the measure would strengthen election integrity and restore public confidence in the voting process. But for millions of eligible voters, particularly transgender Americans, the practical consequences could be far more complicated.
According to Gallup, about 1.3% of U.S. adults identify as transgender, representing roughly 3.3 million Americans. Far from disengaged politically, transgender voters participate in elections at high rates. Data released by Advocates for Trans Equality shows 75% of transgender respondents reported voting in the 2020 election, compared with 67% of the general population. Registration rates are also higher.
This is a community that shows up for democracy. Yet the SAVE Act could place new administrative barriers directly in its path. Birth certificates, the document many supporters believe should verify citizenship are among the most difficult identity records for transgender Americans to update. According to data released by The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School and the U.S. Transgender Survey, 44% of transgender adults had updated their name on government identification, but only 18% had successfully updated their birth certificates.
That gap matters.
If birth certificates become a central requirement for voter registration, millions of eligible transgender Americans could face bureaucratic obstacles that other voters rarely encounter.
History offers a warning. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, Kansas implemented a similar proof-of-citizenship law that blocked more than 30,000 eligible voters from registering before the Kansas Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.
At the same time, evidence suggests voter fraud remains extraordinarily rare. Research cited by the American Immigration Council estimates fraud at roughly 0.0001% of votes cast.
The question before lawmakers is not whether election security matters. It clearly does. The question is whether policies designed to solve a rare problem could intentionally disenfranchise legitimate voters.
The broader cultural debate surrounding gender identity often becomes emotionally charged, particularly when conversations turn to pronouns or language. Yet polling suggests the issue remains unfamiliar to many Americans. A 2022 YouGov poll found only 22% of Americans personally know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns.
Meanwhile, the problems weighing on everyday Americans are far larger: rising grocery prices, health care costs, housing shortages, and economic struggles in both rural towns and urban neighborhoods. Yet, many conservatives choose to focus unnecessary time, energy, and resources litigating the use of pronouns.
A healthy democracy should be able to debate cultural questions without allowing them to become barriers to the ballot box.
So, what should transgender Americans, and allies, do in this moment? First, stay engaged politically. Contact legislators and explain how identification requirements affect real voters. Personal stories often reach policymakers in ways statistics alone cannot.
Second, document the impact. Write letters to local newspapers, share experiences publicly, and ensure the real-world effects of voting policies are visible.
Third, consider running for office. Local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures shape many of the rules governing elections. Finally, protest with discipline and purpose. The most transformative movements in history — from Mahatma Gandhi to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. — were rooted in peaceful persistence and moral clarity.
The SAVE Act may ultimately pass, fail, or change significantly as Congress debates it. But the larger principle at stake should guide the conversation. America’s democracy has always grown stronger when more citizens can participate, not when the path to the ballot becomes harder to navigate. For transgender voters, and for the country as a whole, that principle remains the quiet foundation of the republic.
James Bridgeforth, Ph.D., is a national columnist on the intersection of politics, morality, and civil rights. His work regularly appears in The Chicago Defender and The Black Wall Street Times.
Opinions
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Trump, Netanyahu to blame for inflaming tensions
We can lay the rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia directly at the feet of the felon in the White House, and the criminal at the head of the Israeli government. Both Trump and Netanyahu belong in jail, not leading their governments.
I am a proud Jewish, gay man, and the homophobia and antisemitism the felon in the White House is generating are truly frightening. I am assuming my Muslim friends are feeling the same way about the Islamophobia he is causing to rise. While people have always been racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and antisemitic, Trump has given tacit permission, with his statements, actions, and now his war on Iran, for those feelings to be shouted in the public square, and in the worst-case scenarios, acted on with violent attacks.
We can clearly attribute the rise in antisemitism around the world, to the actions of the right-wing, war criminal, leader of the Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, and what he is doing to destroy Gaza, murdering innocent Palestinians, and now again bombing innocents in Lebanon.
This is all seeping into the politics of our nation. One organization promoting antisemitism and expecting it of the candidates they endorse, is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). They went so far as to take away an endorsement at one point, from one of their most ardent supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), because she refused to fully support their anti-Zionist platform and their support of BDS. The DSA took issue with “[Ocasio-Cortez’s] votes, including a vote in favor of H.Res.888, conflating opposition to Israel’s ‘right to exist’ with antisemitism,” and a press release in April she co-signed that “support[s] strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems.” In their 2025 platform DSA called for a single state from the ‘river to the sea’ as the Palestinian right to resist, thereby eliminating the State of Israel. It goes with their support of BDS and anti-Zionist positions. It is fair to see that as antisemitism.
I am a Zionist, in the sense of the term as coined by Theodor Herzl. I am a believer in, and supporter of, the State of Israel. I am also for a Palestinian state. I am opposed to what Israel’s current government, led by a war criminal, is doing. I had hoped he would have abided by what former President Biden said to him immediately after Oct. 7. “Don’t make the same mistake we did after 9/11. Temper your response.” But instead, Netanyahu has murdered Palestinians by the thousands, destroying Gaza. He was rightfully declared a war criminal and should be brought to justice. He has made things worse both for the people of Israel, and Jews around the world. He has been responsible for antisemitism around the world once again rearing its ugly head. Now, two and a half years after Hamas’s attack on Israel, he is still murdering Palestinians, and now again more people in Lebanon and Iran. He still denies the Palestinian people need a home, a state of their own. He promotes settlements on the West Bank that should be part of a Palestinian state and refuses to prosecute settlers who commit crimes against the Palestinian people there.
My parents and relatives had to flee Hitler. Some came to the United States, and some immigrated to Israel. My father’s parents were killed in Auschwitz. I believed it could never happen again. But the felon in the White House, and criminal in Israel, are abusing me of that notion. Their policies of greed and corruption are leading to danger for all the people of the world. They are leading us into a third world war. The felon is attempting to steal, yes steal, billions through his phony ‘Board of Peace’ where he is screwing the Palestinian people out of their homes in Gaza. It is insanity, and we are all suffering for it; Jews, Muslims, and the rest of the world, as we are thrown into war none of us wants.
Now as I wrote, the DSA, tells people all Zionists are the enemy, without a definition of what a Zionist is. They expect their supporters not to recognize the State of Israel. They create antisemitism, and now in D.C. we have a candidate running for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, asking for, and getting their support. They also have in their platform to defund the police. Those things should frighten all the people of D.C. Any candidate who can run on the DSA platform must be deemed unacceptable to anyone who opposes prejudice and discrimination of any kind. One prejudice leads to others and gives rise to people feeling they can be open about not only their antisemitism, but their Islamophobia, racism, and sexism, as well.
We need all the good voters in the District of Columbia to find these DSA positions unacceptable, and reject any candidate who solicits, and takes their endorsement.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
A surtax would end this war quickly
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
Menaka Guruswamy celebrated as India’s first openly LGBTQ MP
Trans-led HIV clinic in Portsmouth struggles amid funding cuts
‘How We Survived’ panel set for March 25
Calendar: March 21-26
PHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
‘Inherit the Wind’ isn’t about science vs. religion, but the right to think
