Four United Nations Special Rapporteurs have written to the Sri Lankan government warning that provisions of the Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill 2026 are inconsistent with the right to freedom of association under international human rights law, and with international standards on countering terrorist financing.
The communication is dated 28 September 2026 and was issued as OL LKA 5/2026, Tamil Guardian reported. It was signed by Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism; Leopoldo Maldonado Gutiérrez on freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Andrea Bolaños Vargas on the situation of human rights defenders.
“I join UN experts in raising concern that Sri Lanka’s NGO Bill is inconsistent with the right to freedom of association and could restrict human rights defenders, civil society and civic space,” Saul said.
What the Bill would require
All NGOs would have to register with a Competent Authority (section 8), and failing to register would be an offence (section 19), the Daily Mirror reported. Directors and office bearers of a body corporate would carry criminal liability (section 20). Certificates would last three years (section 10) and need renewal, and organisations could not begin activities until registration was granted — but the Bill sets no time limit for a registration or renewal decision.
Section 15 obligations include that organisations “align with the policies of the government”, avoid activity adversely affecting sovereignty or territorial integrity, avoid inducing public disorder, refrain from advocacy supporting political ideologies in a pre-election period, and notify the authority before any crowdfunding. Organisations would also have to act in conformity with Central Bank instructions.
Tamil Guardian reported that penalties include fines of up to Rs. 1 million, that authorities could enter premises without a search warrant on prior notice, and that organisations could be suspended or deregistered on grounds including prima facie evidence of financial irregularities or activities deemed a threat to national security, with no clear appeal process.
The objection
The rapporteurs invoked the principle that associations need no domestic authorisation to fall under the protection of freedom of association, citing the Human Rights Committee’s draft general comment No. 38. They also quoted Human Rights Council resolution 22/6, which asks states to ensure registration procedures are:
“transparent, accessible, non-discriminatory, expeditious and inexpensive, allow for the possibility to appeal and avoid requiring re-registration”.
On the financial-crime rationale they pointed to FATF Recommendation 8, which requires a risk-based and proportionate approach rather than blanket restriction of the non-profit sector.
Why now
The Bill would replace the Voluntary Social Services Organisations Act of 1980. It was first published in 2024 — reportedly without consultation with civil society or the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka — and has gone through successive drafts, the latest in June 2026, which added monitoring of NGOs for counter-terrorism-financing and anti-money-laundering compliance.
It is tied to Sri Lanka’s mutual evaluation by the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering, a FATF-style regional body, planned for October 2026. The Bill is currently undergoing what the letter describes as restricted stakeholder consultations.
The rapporteurs asked the government for its observations, for an explanation of how the Bill is consistent with freedom of association and counter-terrorism standards, whether it will be withdrawn or substantially revised, and for confirmation that it will be gazetted and put to inclusive consultation.
Not the first such letter
Tamil Guardian noted that the same mandates wrote to the government in February 2026 over the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the proposed replacement for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was gazetted last month.
The “align with the policies of the Government” clause the rapporteurs single out is the same provision that Tamil Progressive Alliance politburo member Barath Arullsamy warned would weaken organisations that help citizens challenge state decisions a week earlier.
Not reported
Neither outlet carries a government response to the letter, a date for the Bill’s gazetting or presentation to Parliament, or the deadline by which the rapporteurs expect a reply.
