Queries persist on closing down of 500 non-governmental groups

On December 5, 2014, Fazul Mahamed, the newly-appointed executive director of the NGOs Co-ordination Board, placed a quarter-page advertisement in the Daily Nation as a notice to all NGOs on annual reports.

The advert notified all NGOs with pending annual reports to file the same within 21 days from the date of that notice.

The notice concluded by stating that if the NGOs failed to comply with the deadline, the board would take appropriate legal action without further reference to them.

According to the advert, therefore, December 26, 2014 would be the last day for NGOs to comply.

However, before the expiry of the 21 days, on December 16, 2014, Mr Mahamed called a press conference where he announced that 501 NGOs had been shut down, their accounts frozen and their assets seized.

The obvious contradiction notwithstanding, there was another statement in the advert to the effect that pursuant to section (7) of the NGOs Co-ordination Act and Regulation 24 of the NGOs Co-ordination Regulations, all NGOs are required to file annual reports within three months from the date of the expiry of their financial year.

This means that not all NGOs have the same financial year. However, the advert was silent on the fact that late filing of annual returns attracts an automatic fine of Sh25,000. In other words, the advert was a waiver or could be construed as such.

At the press conference, there was an implication to the effect that some NGOs were raising funds beyond the comfort of the board. It became clear that the board is either unable or unwilling to appreciate that there are many factors that influence donor funding.

For instance, in the field of health, some donors only fund the war against polio, while others only fund initiatives towards the eradication of river-blindness. Yet some donors only donate towards maternal healthcare, while others fund the war against malaria. The NGOs that fight HIV/Aids have different budgets from those that fund family planning initiatives. This means that different health concerns attract different donors and amounts.

It is, therefore, unfair, unjust and naïve to use the liquidity of one NGO in the health sector against another NGO in the same sector but in a different area.

The board should also clearly indicate if the deregistered NGOs were axed because the government had a problem with some NGOs in the governance sector or food relief or education or water.

It does not help matters when one sector is used to victimise a whole spectrum of an otherwise hardworking, diligent and non-political NGO world. Even in the governance sector, not all NGOs are involved in activism. Some may easily fall victim to the extremities of their colleagues.

It was also apparent from the press conference that the board lacked the capacity to appreciate the spread and outreach of NGOs. It emerged that the board would easily lump together domestic (Kenya-only NGOs) and cross-border (international) NGOs which use Kenya as their headquarters because of instability in neighbouring countries. Some international NGOs prefer Kenya as their headquarters because of the large expatriate community resident here.

Mr Mahamed did not indicate which section of the Act requires an NGO to cap funding from donors. He was further reported to have stated that following the deregistration of the 510 NGOs, for non-compliance, the board had frozen their bank accounts and is now repossessing their assets with a view to redistributing the same to other NGOs pursuing similar charitable objectives.

He obviously underestimated the possibility of litigation by local NGOs and definitely by international ones.

It is curious that the reported 15 unnamed NGOs, based mainly in northern Kenya and the Coast, which he announced to have been accused of funding terrorism, had been banned.

This does not reflect well on a government institution that is supposed to be the custodian of sensitive information and data.

The writer is a policy analyst, [email protected]