The new NGO Bill: Regulating civil society or restricting democratic space?

Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake

The debate on regulating non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is not new to Sri Lanka. It has a long and complex history rooted in the country’s three decades of armed conflict, the post-war period, and successive governments’ attempts to redefine the relationship between the State and civil society. In recent weeks, some commentators have sought to portray the proposed Non-Governmental Organisation Registration and Supervision Bill – 2026 as a continuation of policies introduced during President Ranil Wickremesinghe's administration. This is an inaccurate reading of the Bill's legislative history.

Although the Bill has evolved through successive governments, the draft that forms the basis of the current legislation was originally prepared during the administration of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It was already on the files of the National Secretariat for Non-Governmental Organisations before President Ranil Wickremesinghe assumed office. The discussions that took place during 2022–2023 were  therefore based on an existing draft rather than a new Bill prepared under his direction.

This point was  reinforced during a consultation with President Wickremesinghe on 14 March 2024, when he remarked, "I received this only a few days ago." His statement suggests that the draft had not been personally  initiated or closely supervised by him.

At the same time, it is important to recognise that the Bill currently before the country contains a number of significant provisions that were  never presented to or discussed with civil society organisations during earlier rounds of consultation. These additions warrant careful public scrutiny and should not be attributed to earlier consultative processes that did not include them.

 The country certainly needs a modern legal framework governing NGOs. Transparency, financial accountability and good governance should be expected of every organisation. Civil society itself has a responsibility to strengthen internal governance, financial integrity, safeguarding policies and public accountability. At the same time, accountability must never become a justification for political control

I have personally participated in many of these discussions over the years. It is therefore important to place the current debate in its proper historical context.

I also remember the manner in which Ranil Wickremesinghe who was then the Prime Minister deferred the adoption of  a similar NGO law after an in-depth discussion with the civil society.

Wickremesinghe was always available for discussion with the civil society and never directed the formulation of a legal framework of this nature.

Resisting Regulations in 2009

The trajectory towards a restrictive NGO regulatory regime began in earnest in 2009, when the NGO Secretariat—then functioning under the Defence Ministry—introduced a re-registration process together with administrative circulars requiring NGOs to obtain prior approval before holding seminars or media conferences.

 I have personally participated in many of these discussions over the years. It is therefore important to place the current debate in its proper historical context. I also remember the manner in which Ranil Wickramasinghe who was then the Prime Minister deferred the adoption of  a similar NGO law after an in-depth discussion with the civil society. Wickramasinghe was always available for discussion with the civil society and never directed the formulation of a legal framework of this nature

Sri Lankan NGOs collectively opposed these measures. Civil society organisations organised a public protest in front of the Fort Railway Station and symbolically burnt the circular that sought to impose these restrictions. The legal basis of the NGO Secretariat itself was questioned, as it functioned under a Gazette notification rather than an Act of Parliament. It soon became apparent that the Government intended to remedy this legal weakness by introducing comprehensive legislation.

The drafting process gathered momentum during the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, around 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The early drafts reflected a strong national security perspective, arguing that NGOs required tighter regulation because some organisations allegedly acted against the sovereignty of the State. During this period, international pressure also contributed to moving the NGO Secretariat from the Defence Ministry to the Foreign Affairs Ministry. Several senior civil society representatives raised concerns about the shrinking democratic space during this period with the then Foreign Minister G.L Peiris.

The economic collapse of 2022 temporarily shifted attention away from the proposed legislation. However, the draft remained with the Ministry and the NGO Secretariat.

When President Ranil Wickremesinghe formed a new administration, the NGO Secretariat was once again placed under the Public Security Ministry. Civil society appealed for the subject to be transferred away from a law enforcement ministry, arguing that NGOs should not be viewed primarily through a security lens. Following the appointment of a new Director General, consultations resumed.

Consultations with NGOs

Throughout 2023 and 2024, civil society organisations, both individually and collectively, made extensive submissions challenging many provisions of the draft Bill. During this period, there was also considerable pressure from institutions concerned with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing to establish a stronger legal framework for NGO regulation. A former Director General of the NGO Secretariat has publicly acknowledged the urgency that was conveyed to the Secretariat in this regard.

 The Government should publish the final draft for wider public discussion, conduct meaningful consultations with NGOs across the country, assess the Bill’s compatibility with constitutional guarantees and international standards, and ensure that the legislation strengthens rather than weakens democratic participation

Based on several consultation with the civil society representatives 7 October 2024, which reflected several amendments proposed by civil society. Before that process could be completed, the Government changed.

The Bill now before Parliament is therefore not simply a continuation of the earlier draft. It contains several new provisions that raise even greater concern.

One provision is particularly troubling.

Section 15(2) of the proposed 2026 Bill requires every registered NGO not only to comply with the laws of Sri Lanka but also to “align with the policies of the Government.”

This represents a fundamental departure from the October 2024 draft. The earlier version merely required organisations not to engage in activities that undermined Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, territorial integrity or constitutional order.

There is a profound difference between these two approaches.

Every organisation should obey the law. That is beyond dispute.

However, requiring independent organisations to align themselves with the policies of whichever government happens to be in power fundamentally alters the nature of civil society. NGOs exist precisely because they are independent voices capable of supporting government where appropriate while also questioning, criticising and proposing alternatives when public policy fails to protect people’s rights.

Democratic accountability depends upon that independence.

Another significant change is the increase in penalties. The earlier draft proposed a maximum fine of Rs. 250,000, while the present Bill raises this to Rs. 1 million. Such a substantial increase could have serious consequences, particularly for smaller community-based organisations operating with limited resources.

Equally concerning is the approach taken towards compliance.

Sri Lanka already possesses extensive legislation dealing with money laundering, terrorist financing and financial crimes. Those offences should undoubtedly be investigated and prosecuted where evidence exists.

However, the proposed NGO Bill appears to treat a range of administrative shortcomings as grounds for severe sanctions, including deregistration. Many small NGOs function with very limited staff and modest budgets. Delays in submitting reports may reflect capacity constraints rather than criminal intent. A regulatory framework should distinguish between deliberate financial misconduct and administrative non-compliance instead of treating both through a punitive lens.

It is also important to remember the contribution civil society has made to Sri Lanka over several decades.

NGOs have supported victims of war and displacement, documented human rights violations, promoted reconciliation, strengthened women’s political participation, monitored elections, advanced labour rights, protected the environment, and provided humanitarian assistance when State institutions lacked the capacity to reach vulnerable communities.

Civil society is not a substitute for government. Nor should it be viewed as an adversary of the State. A healthy democracy requires accountable government institutions, an independent judiciary, a free media, an active Parliament, and a vibrant civil society capable of participating in public affairs.

International human rights standards recognise freedom of association as a fundamental democratic right. While States may regulate civil society organisations, such regulation must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory.

Sri Lanka therefore faces an important choice.

The country certainly needs a modern legal framework governing NGOs. Transparency, financial accountability and good governance should be expected of every organisation. Civil society itself has a responsibility to strengthen internal governance, financial integrity, safeguarding policies and public accountability.

At the same time, accountability must never become a justification for political control.

The Government should publish the final draft for wider public discussion, conduct meaningful consultations with NGOs across the country, assess the Bill’s compatibility with constitutional guarantees and international standards, and ensure that the legislation strengthens rather than weakens democratic participation.

Ultimately, the measure of a strong democracy is not how effectively it controls independent voices, but how confidently it allows them to exist.

The debate on the NGO Bill is therefore not simply about regulating organisations. It is about defining the future relationship between the State, civil society and democracy in Sri Lanka.

(The author is an Attorney-at-Law and served in the NGO Advisory Committee during the Yahapalanaya Government and has been an active member of the civil society for over four decades)