A requirement in the circulated draft NGO law that organisations “align with the policies of the Government” would weaken the very bodies that help citizens challenge state decisions, Democratic People’s Front Vice President for International Affairs and Tamil Progressive Alliance politburo member Barath Arullsamy has warned.
The draft Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) law would extend compulsory registration across a broad range of civil society organisations, require renewal every three years, and give a minister-appointed authority powers to inspect, suspend or deregister organisations, Arullsamy told the Daily Mirror.
“Consider an organisation helping families challenge a government land decision. If it must align with government policy, can it defend those families without fearing consequences? That uncertainty alone can discourage people.”
He said repeated compliance costs could leave small organisations with fewer resources for legal assistance, women’s protection or disaster relief.
The stated rationale, and the objection
The NGO Secretariat’s official statement of July 24 says the Bill is intended to strengthen regulation and reduce money-laundering, terrorist-financing and proliferation-financing risks, and records consultations and an invitation for comment.
Arullsamy accepted those as legitimate objectives but said the Bill does not explain why independent organisations should have to agree with government policy in order to operate. He noted that Sri Lanka already has the 1980 law governing voluntary social service organisations, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Financial Transactions Reporting Act and the convention law on suppressing terrorist financing.
“The Government must identify what these existing laws cannot address and justify each additional power. If financial crime is the problem, why make agreement with government policy part of the solution?”
He pointed to the Financial Action Task Force’s Recommendation 8, which calls for proportionate measures based on identified terrorist-financing risks while protecting legitimate nonprofit activity.
“We should not confuse effective financial regulation with blanket control of civil society. FATF itself has moved towards a targeted and proportionate approach. Sri Lanka should be careful not to go further than what genuine financial-security risks require.”
At a Sri Lanka CSO FATF Network event on September 17, UN Resident Coordinator Marc-André Franche warned that blanket restrictions could undermine both security and development, and a co-chair of the Global NPO Coalition raised similar concerns.
Precedent cited
Arullsamy recalled the Defence Ministry’s 2014 restrictions on NGO media activity — press conferences, workshops, journalist training and the distribution of press releases — and said contested NGO amendments were withdrawn during Mano Ganesan’s tenure as minister, a period in which organisations including Amnesty International obtained registration after earlier refusals.
He urged that the NGO proposal be examined alongside the 22nd Amendment and proposed counterterrorism legislation, warning against a cumulative weakening of democratic safeguards, and called for the policy-alignment clause to be removed, lighter obligations for small organisations, genuine public consultation and judicial safeguards against arbitrary interference.
This account rests on a single interview published by the Daily Mirror; no other verified newsroom had filed on Arullsamy’s remarks at the time of writing. The text of the draft Bill was not independently examined for this report.
