The government on 29 August lifted a two-month ban on the operations of non–governmental organisations which it had accused of dabbling in politics.
The ban was imposed by Labour and Social Welfare Minister Nicholas Goche on 4 June, three weeks before the presidential elections runoff which the Movement for Democratic Change subsequently pulled out of.
The lifting of the ban did not, however, seem to apply to organisations involved in democracy and human rights.
Most of them had ignored the ban in the first place.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 08HARARE778, NGO BAN LIFTED, BUT NOT DEFINITIVELY
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Released |
Classification |
Origin |
VZCZCXRO6135
OO RUEHDU RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHSB #0778/01 2491102
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 051102Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY HARARE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3388
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA 2263
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 2383
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0908
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1660
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 2016
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 2437
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 4869
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUZEJAA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RHMFISS/EUCOM POLAD VAIHINGEN GE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1532
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 000778
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR G. GARLAND
DRL FOR N. WILETT
ADDIS ABABA FOR USAU
ADDIS ABABA FOR ACSS
STATE PASS TO USAID FOR E. LOKEN AND L. DOBBINS
STATE PASS TO NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR B. PITTMAN
DCHA/AA FOR MIKE HESS
AFR/AA FOR KATE ALMQUIST AND FRANKLIN MOORE
AFR/SA FOR ELOKEN, LDOBBINS, JKOLE
DCHA/OFDA FOR KLUU, ACONVERY, TDENYSENKO, LMTHOMAS
DCHA/FFP FOR JBORNS, JDWORKEN, LPETERSON, ASINK
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/05/2018
TAGS: ASEC EAID KDEM PGOV PHUM PREL ZI
SUBJECT: NGO BAN LIFTED, BUT NOT DEFINITIVELY
REF: A. A. HARARE 765
¶B. B. HARARE 503
Classified By: Charge d’affaires, a.i. Glenn Warren for reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d).
——-
SUMMARY
——-
¶1. (SBU) The Ministry of Social Welfare, Public Service, and
Labour (MSWPSL) lifted the ban on humanitarian assistance on
August 29, and MSWPSL officials explained new reporting
requirements for all registered Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) and Private Voluntary Organizations
(PVOs) at a meeting on September 1 (ref A). However,
significant confusion remains about the status of
non-humanitarian NGOs. The lifting of the suspension appears
to exclude organizations – including many involved in
democracy and human rights work – that operate as
Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), PVOs, Trusts, and
Universitas. Most of these organizations ignored the ban on
“field operations” and continued to carry out their
activities, although these same groups’ offices were
frequently raided and their meetings interrupted. These NGOs
believe authorities will continue to interrupt their
activities, regardless of the law. Nevertheless, they intend
to continue their efforts. Additionally, with regard to the
reporting requirements, the National Association of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NANGO) maintains that these
are a backdoor attempt to operationalize elements of the 2005
NGO Bill that was hotly contested and never made law, and may
be an attempt to impede their operations. END SUMMARY.
——————————————-
Background: Legalities Confound and Confuse
——————————————-
¶2. (SBU) The NGO suspension issued by Minister of Social
Welfare, Public Service, and Labour, Nicholas Goche, on June
4, singled out all NGOs conducting humanitarian operations
that were registered under the 2002 Private Voluntary
Organization Act (ref B). He further instructed “all
PVOs/NGOs to suspend all field operations until further
notice.” A June 12 clarification document issued by Stanley
Mhishi, as Acting Permanent Secretary, defined field
operations as “movement by NGOs/PVOs personnel into
communities in order to mobilize, organize, or bring together
large groups of people.” It also clarified that churches
were not affected by the suspension. The August 29 document
lifting the suspension lists five areas in which NGOs/PVOs
can operate – humanitarian assistance, food aid, relief,
recovery, and development; family and child care and
protection; care and protection of older persons; rights and
empowerment of people with disabilities; and HIV and AIDS
treatment, care, and related support services. NGO/PVO
operations in other areas are not mentioned.
¶3. (SBU) While the Zimbabwean Government (GOZ) has not
clarified if other field activities of non-humanitarian NGOs
remain suspended, NANGO believes the suspension still
restricts activities by democracy-building and human
rights-related NGOs and PVOs (e.g. Transparency International
Zimbabwe, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, and
ZimRights), and that the MSWPSL request for information is
illegal. Veritas, another civil society organization that
HARARE 00000778 002 OF 003
deals with legal issues, disputes NANGO’s contention and
believes these activities and organizations were never
suspended. Regardless, many civil society organizations –
which have a long history of defying GOZ attempts to
interfere with their activities – have continued to operate
throughout the “suspension”.
¶4. (SBU) In another twist, many organizations (e.g. Crisis
in Zimbabwe Coalition, Zimbabwe Christian Alliance, and the
National Constitutional Assembly) that conduct similar
activities are defined as Universitas and therefore fall
outside the definitions of the PVO Act. In practice,
however, police and local authorities have routinely
restricted and interrupted the activities of churches and
organizations registered as Trusts and Universitas, even
though they were not technically suspended in either the June
4 or the June 12 documents.
——————————————— —
Attempt to Operationalize Failed 2005 NGO Bill?
——————————————— —
¶5. (SBU) NANGO maintains that the new reporting requirements
in the Monitoring and Evaluation form (ref A) that NGOs must
submit to the MSWPSL constitute an attempt by the GOZ to
operationalize elements of the 2005 NGO Bill that was never
enacted as law. (NOTE: Although the ZANU-PF dominated
Parliament passed the bill, which the MDC-led Parliamentary
Legal Committee had found unconstitutional, President Mugabe
did not sign it into lQ The bill was harshly criticized by
organizations such as Human Rights Watch for being too
burdensome on local NGOs, prohibiting them from receiving
foreign funding for activities involving “issues of
governance”, and for eliminating registration exemptions in
the PVO Act. It also intended to increase the powers of the
MSWPSL to cancel organizations’ registrations and take over
the property of dissolved NGOs. END NOTE). As a result,
NANGO has advised NGOs and PVOs not to comply with the MSWPSL
information request.
———————-
OCHA Misinforms Donors
———————-
¶6. (SBU) At a September 3 meeting hosted by the UN Resident
Humanitarian Coordinator Agostinho Zacharias and the Director
of the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance
(OCHA) Georges Tadonki, the two briefed donors – most of whom
did not attend the September 1 clarification meeting – on the
lifting of the suspension. They explained that human
rights-related NGOs were never covered by the ban, and that
they would not have to submit information requested to the
MSWPSL because they were registered with the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ). Zimbabwean lawyers, however, tell us that no
NGOs are registered with the MoJ. Tadonki also explained
that he believed it was “very unlikely” the GOZ would try to
stop faith-based organizations’ activities. However, in
practice, church-related organizations have been prohibited
from carrying out activities. (COMMENT: The meeting was
characterized by the familiar OCHA rhetoric of giving the GOZ
the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of contradictory
experience. END COMMENT.)
——-
COMMENT
——-
HARARE 00000778 003 OF 003
¶7. (C) Technically, the June 4 ban appears to remain in place
for governance and human rights organizations. In practice,
the legalities of NGOs, PVOs, Trusts, and Universitas matter
relatively little. What is significant is whether they arQin fact permitted to operate. Because the local security
structures and provincial governors all continue to be
controlled by ZANU-PF, organizations’ field activities remain
at their mercy. We will monitor closely in the coming weeks
the ability of these organizations to operate.
¶8. (C) We remain concerned that the UN’s Zacharias and
Tadonki have been too conciliatory toward the GOZ and
unwilling to press for humanitarian access and for the
ability of governance and human rights organizations to
operate throughout Zimbabwe. Their reluctance to confront
the GOZ has made it easier for the government to escape
responsibilities for its actions. END COMMENT.
MCGEE
(104 VIEWS)
