CIVICUS discusses Zambia’s Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) bill with Josiah Kalala, Executive Director of Chapter One Foundation, a Zambian civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes constitutionalism, human rights and the rule of law.

Parliament’s passage of the NGO bill, introduced by the government in March, would impose stringent registration requirements on Zambian civil society, grant authorities expanded oversight powers and limit the operational autonomy of CSOs. The government says the bill aims to enhance coordination and strengthen accountability, but civil society warns it could restrict civic space and suppress legitimate dissent ahead of elections in 2026. If the bill passes in its current form, civil society fears it will lead to increased self-censorship, organisational closures and broader democratic regression.

What are your main concerns about the NGO bill?

The bill has numerous problems. One of its most troubling aspects is that it gives continuity to the present situation in which the regulatory department is under the jurisdiction of a ministry. The bill gives the government the power to establish a regulatory agency within the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services, raising serious questions about independence and fairness.

The proposed agency would wield extensive powers: issuing licences, reviewing reports and financial statements, overseeing an NGO Congress—a collective body of registered organisations—and crucially, suspending or deregistering organisations. Most troubling is the requirement for organisations to align their work with national development plans, effectively giving the government veto powers over civil society activities.

The bill compounds these concerns through several problematic mechanisms. It introduces a cumbersome two-step registration and licensing process, replacing today’s streamlined single-step system. More dangerously, it permits denial of registration if the name of the CSO is considered by the registrar to be inimical to ‘public interest’, a vague concept that can easily be exploited for political purposes. Additionally, the bill grants the government sweeping search and seizure powers. Although it requires a warrant, there are concerns the judicial process could be manipulated.

Structurally, the bill largely mirrors existing legislation in its flaws. Like current laws, it employs vague language and crucially fails to resolve legal uncertainty for organisations registered under other statutes. Take our own experience: Chapter One Foundation operates under the Companies Act. Should our NGO licence be cancelled, we would theoretically continue existing under company law, but the practical implications remain entirely unclear. The bill provides no guidance on this fundamental question, leaving organisations in legal limbo.

Would this legislation worsen existing challenges?

The bill would significantly worsen conditions for civil society groups, particularly those that hold the government accountable. We’re already witnessing government efforts to influence or undermine critical organisations. This legislation would further empower the NGO department and create an NGO Congress that could effectively control or sideline independent voices.

Organisations that criticise government policies face genuine risk of being targeted. Once actualised, there may be little room for CSOs to disagree with the government.

 

How has civil society responded?

Civil society has mounted a quick collective response, releasing joint statements, submitting feedback to parliament and engaging government officials. This has helped slow the bill’s progress.

At Chapter One Foundation, we believe the bill is entirely unnecessary, because existing laws already adequately regulate CSOs. But if the government insists on a new law, it should be one that facilitates civil society work, not one that obstructs it.

We propose several improvements to the bill to ensure it provides for an enabling operating environment. First, it should establish clear and specific deregistration criteria. Second, it should allow organisations to choose whether to register, with incentives such as tax breaks for those that do. And third, it should create clear, simple rules for organisations already registered under other laws that don’t force legal status changes.

What lessons are there from neighbouring countries?

Regional experience teaches us that solidarity matters. United civil society voices are much harder to ignore. Equally important is acting early because once restrictive laws pass, rolling them back becomes incredibly difficult.

We’ve also learned that threats to civic space don’t always manifest through major NGO bills. Rather than passing blanket repressive laws, governments may introduce smaller, sometimes technical changes across multiple laws that gradually erode civic space. Take Zambia’s new Access to Information Law: while generally progressive, it contains provisions that limit access and affect our work. This is why we must examine the broader legislative landscape and understand how different laws interact.

We’ve also seen governments increasingly borrow restrictive ideas from one another, much as civil society shares good practices. This trend makes staying alert and building regional networks even more critical.

What role are international partners playing?

International partners have proved invaluable. Donors have provided financial support for mobilisation and technical expertise, while we’ve worked closely with organisations such as the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law to analyse the bill and learn from other countries. These regional connections have significantly shaped our advocacy strategy.

However, African regional bodies have been notably absent. Unlike the European Union, they haven’t taken strong positions on civic space issues. This must change if we want to prevent restrictive legal models spreading continent-wide.

Looking ahead, international partners can continue supporting us by speaking out, providing legal and technical advice and funding public awareness efforts. Funding is particularly important for campaigns to help people understand what’s at stake, particularly given how Zambia’s inequality limits access to information.

Even as we work to stop the bill, we must prepare for its potential passage. This means building stronger regional networks and ensuring we have the necessary legal tools to challenge unconstitutional provisions in court. Zambia has long offered civil society greater freedom than many neighbouring countries. We intend to preserve that space – for ourselves and others who depend on it.