The new NGO law has failed society's expectations, but the NGOs vow to battle on, reports Mariz Tadros Click to view caption The new NGO law has inspired widespread disillusionment and anger among NGOs, who have long struggled for less restrictive legislation. Nasser Amin, director of the Arab Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary, summarised their sentiments. The new law, he said, was far worse than all previous laws regulating NGO activities. "The law is based on a philosophy of protecting national security, rather than empowering civil society," he said. NGOs and political parties mobilised their opposition to the law throughout the week. On Sunday, a delegation of NGO representatives presented a letter to Parliament Speaker Fathi Sorour. It expressed their objections, highlighting the articles they said were in violation of the constitution. Written before the law was passed, the letter appealed for a halt to its debate in the People's Assembly and urged its discussion among political parties and NGOs. The letter was signed by the leftist Tagammu Party, the Liberal Wafd Party, the Nasserist Party, the outlawed Egyptian Communist Party and 19 NGOs. A Tagammu party statement released at a press conference held earlier in the day was enclosed with the letter. It expressed anxiety and shock over the lack of consideration for citizens' constitutional rights, criticising the rush to pass the law quickly, thus ruling out a democratic dialogue with NGO representatives. The statement said the law restricted the nature of NGO activities, thus contravening the constitution. It pointed to activities of a political nature prohibited by the law. It said NGOs and political parties were joining efforts in an extended democratic battle to defend the constitutional rights of citizens and the right of social organisations to play a role in re- establishing a lost equilibrium between the individual and the state. At the press conference, Hussein Abdel- Razek, member of the central secretariat of the Tagammu Party said that even with the passing of the law, the battle against its encroachment on society would not end. A committee, he said, would be formed to defend democracy and the rights of NGOs. Aida Seif El-Dawla, a psychiatrist at Ain Shams University and member of the Nadim Centre for the Rehabilitation and Management of Victims of Violence and Torture, said she suspected that the new law aimed at thwarting all emerging social movements, such as the Egyptian Popular Committee in Solidarity with the Palestinian Intifada (EPCSPI), which has a membership of 3,000 people. She said people were getting together in solidarity to exercise their right to freedom of association and mobilisation. The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR) also released a statement and report this week describing the law as a step towards "nationalising" civil activity in Egypt. The EOHR and other organisations are opposed to 11 articles in the law. They include the restrictions on NGO activities, the restrictions on the establishment of new NGOs, the constraints on accepting foreign funding, except with prior official permission, and the encroachment of the ministry on the responsibilities of the general assembly and board of the NGO. They also object to the huge penalties in the law, which discourage voluntary activities. Bahieddin Hassan, director of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies, is convinced that the new NGO law aims at restricting civil society in general and human rights organisations in particular. Like law 153, the new law prohibits any organisation from engaging in civil activity unless it has registered with the Ministry of Social Affairs. This means that human rights organisations can no longer operate as non-profit companies, but must come under the legal umbrella of the ministry. Hassan suggested that the new law was part and parcel of an official policy which has sought to contain and inhibit civil society and political life in Egypt since the early 1990s. He cited two reasons for the limited participation of the 16,000 other NGOs: first, some exist only on paper (it is estimated that as many as half the NGOs are inactive) and second, many are too scared to antagonise the government. Hassan protested that those opposed to the NGO law did not obtain a fair hearing in the People's Assembly. For example, an alternative draft law presented by independent MP Ayman Nour in 1999 to the Shura Council and Parliament (well before the government presented its bill) was not discussed at all. The alternative draft law, which had the approval of human rights organisations, called for a return to the 1946 civil law. It was stricter in its demands for accountability and transparency than the new one. It required the Central Auditing Authority to review NGO finances. A democratic spirit infused the civil law of 1946, Nour said, whereas the new law emanated from the prevalent philosophy of extending the government's hegemony to all aspects of civil life. The Hisham Mubarak Legal Aid Centre documented 16 articles which it said violated the constitution. The constitutionality of the law, however, cannot be directly contested. A lawsuit can only be filed with the administrative court after the law is put into practice. The administrative court then decides whether or not to refer the law to the constitutional court. Saadeddin Ibrahim, professor of sociology at the American University in Cairo and distinguished human rights activist, was one of the members of the committee who originally formulated the previous law. Compared with law 153, Ibrahim said, the new law represented "two steps backwards". This was because the right to disband an association was not in the hands of a court of law, it was in the government's hands. Then, it criminalised membership in federations or networks outside the country without prior government permission. The latter, he said, "represents a negation of the international and indeed Arab trend which encourages entities to be part of international networks". Ibrahim said the official justification for the new law may be the events of 11 September, but the real reason is the will to crack down on human rights groups, organisations advocating democracy, and all groups working for the public interest, including anti-corruption groups. "We thought law 32 of 1964 was bad until we saw the new one," he said. And that was the view of most who have struggled against the law. Related stories: Governing the non-governmental 30 May - 5 June 2002 New law, old problems 22 - 28 November 2001 Too soon to celebrate 5 - 11 July 2001 Demoralised apprehension 11 - 17 January 2001 Legal shortcomings 8 - 14 June 2000 Rights at a crossroads 18 - 24 May 2000 NGO law under fresh fire 27 April - 3 May 2000 Mightier than the sword? 10 - 16 December 1998
