daniel chigunwe
THE willingness of the Government to explain its actions and policies and take into account the views of those who are affected by proposed legislation has been seen once again with the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill.
The original amendment Bill did pass Parliament, but President Mnangagwa felt that it did not meet what was required and sent it back for reconsideration. It died when Parliament was dissolved for the August elections last year and now a new version has been drafted and debate has started.
The opposition to the Bill, from the very beginning, has been that it breaches the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
The Government disagrees, and Parliament, with the first draft, also disagreed. The main thrust of the Bill is that any group raising money for charitable purposes has to register as a Voluntary Service Organisation.
In discussion with VSOs this week, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi, explained that far from wanting to restrict or hit out at non-governmental organisations, the Government wanted them to flourish, but be prepared to draw up respectable accounts and be able to show those who give them money how it was spent. They also have to state the source of funds.
Voluntary organisations have for many decades made an immense contribution to Zimbabwe and most have been well-run by passionate enthusiasts. The country would be considerably poorer without the charitable work done, and the research and lobbying over the years.
A voluntary organisation does not have to aid other people, although that is the purpose of many. Some exist to bring like-minded people together, so they can act together.
For example much of our national parks system and wildlife law is built on the efforts of the Wildlife Society and others. Harare’s remaining wetlands have received a lot of protection from determined efforts by passionate members of communities.
Registration is required in many cases, usually when money is raised from the public or when money is being spent, even if it is informally raised.
This again has been the case for a long time and ensures that those who give money can find out how it was spent. This, if nothing else, can kill con schemes or even those organisations where most of the funds go on the administration expenses of the office bearers.
One result of this insistence going back so many years is that many churches set up separate welfare organisations to keep the money raised for the administration of the church as an organisation, where registration is not required since freedom of religion is entrenched, from the money and accounts of the welfare side.
Most churches also wanted the split so that the welfare side could be pure welfare without any attempt to use it as an evangelisation tool.
The modern world has, regrettably, seen criminals becoming bolder and using any available channel to launder criminal funds, as well as steal money from charities in the first place, or to use benign sounding organisations to fund terrorism or other crimes.
So accounts do need to meet higher standards, but again this benefits the overwhelming majority because it means their accounts, if a bit rough in the past, will now be more open and transparent.
One area that worried Minister Ziyambi and which he brought up in the discussions was the question of trusts. The amendment Bill does not propose to ban trusts: they are too useful for so many purposes.
But what it does do is force the conversion of a trust that seems to operate more like a voluntary organisation, and especially if its funding is more like a VSO, to register as one.
The minister suspected some organisations had chosen the trust route simply to avoid the VSO route and its greater insistence on public accountability, plus in some cases, but not all, the insistence on centring on stated aims.
If Zimbabweans want an example of a proper and functional trust, they need look no further than the Beit Trust, set up more than a century ago in the will of Sir Alfred Beit, who after making sure his family was well provided for, set aside a large block of his personal fortune, largely raised in the diamond fields and gold mines of South Africa, for the benefit of Zimbabweans, concentrating on infrastructure and education.
It has done incredibly good work, but legally is not a VSO since it uses just money left in trust by one person. That is fair enough.
He was allowed to leave his money where he wished. There are many trusts that cope with estates left to minor children and even some that benefit a family for generations. This is what trusts mainly do.
But where a trust is acting as a welfare organisation, especially with continuous inflows of income, it probably should in many cases be changed into a VSO. That is proposed in the Bill, although there are appeal procedures and safeguards and now agreement that there should be a year’s notice.
There have been concerns over the requirement to separate at least some major aspects of political activity, particularly party political activity, from welfare or even lobbying activity.
This is a bit like the churches needing to separate their semi-secular accounts from the church accounts.
Zimbabweans, although not foreigners, can give money to any political party they wish and can back financially any candidate they wish. But it has to be done directly, rather than through a VSO.
This is not unreasonable and many democracies have this sort of insistence on lack of anonymous political funding.
Lobbying, that is trying to get politicians of all political parties to support a particular policy, such as conservation, is a legitimate VSO activity.
Minister Ziyambi was more than willing to deal with other concerns, including bureaucrats delaying registration, and was more than happy to see deadlines and timelines incorporated into the amendment.
Again this is so VSOs can function for any non-forbidden purpose, but under the rules laid down on declared purposes and financial accountability.
We hope the discussions this week have both eased concerns as well as provided valuable input to make the law more effective, but less burdensome for the legitimate majority.
Online Reporter