NEW: PVO Bill to curb abuse of aid

Online Reporter 

THERE have been complaints from some sections of society, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), political parties and foreign embassies that the proposed Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Bill seeks to curtail the work of civil society and charitable organisations in Zimbabwe.

However, it should be noted that the purpose of this Bill is principally to curb corruption and money laundering, which is rampant among Western-sponsored NGOs.

A number of NGOs have deviated from their core mandates, and are now involving themselves in politics and pushing for unorthodox means of changing Government.

Apart from getting money to finance the opposition directly and indirectly from Western countries and their governments, or groups such as the Open Society Foundations run by George Soros, the NGOs have been used as parallel governments in distributing aid when the capacity of Government has been curtailed. 

In these arrangements, donors claim that they fund the NGOs on behalf of local people. 

There have been numerous cases of financial aid abuse globally and locally that the United States or Western countries never raise or are too embarrassed to reveal.

It is for this reason that countries, including the USA, put in place laws to govern these non-governmental organisations.

The passing of the PVO Bill will allow Government to legally and effectively monitor activities of these NGOs on the ground.

It is surprising that countries such as the USA, through its embassy in Harare, can call on Government to withdraw the proposed Bill, saying it seeks to bar NGOs from political lobbying.

The Bill, approved by Cabinet last year, was promulgated to meet the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations and the need to prohibit NGOs from involvement in politics.

The Bill amends the Private Voluntary Organisations Act (Chapter 17:05) to align it with the FATF recommendations made to Zimbabwe, as a member country, to develop policies to combat money laundering. 

More specifically, the PVO Amendment Bill seeks to comply with FATF recommendations under technical compliance raised under Zimbabwe’s Mutual Evaluation Report, which saw the country placed under a monitoring programme in October 2018 by the FATF.

This was done so that the country would align its laws on private voluntary organisations to recommendation 8, which provided that PVOs can be abused by money launderers and terrorist financiers, and that as such, there was need to have clear laws that set out a framework to prevent any potential abuse in key sectors.

In 2018, we saw how many of the so-called ‘democracy champions’ in the country were busy siphoning money from NGOs for their personal enrichment at the expense of purported beneficiaries.

At some point, USAID suspended a number of NGOs after their leaders abused donations meant for various programmes.  

Among these organisations are the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights), Counselling Services Unit (CSU) and the Election Resource Centre (ERC).

Even the US Embassy’s acting public relations officer at the time acknowledged there had been misuse of US funding by local partners who diverted the funds from their intended use.

While these NGOs purport to be champions of good governance and democracy, they are at the forefront of vices such as money laundering and fraud, which is why it is necessary for the country to have a law that governs their operations.

Even in the United States, the country has put in place laws that, among other things, seek to prevent charitable fraud.

There are more than 40 states in the US which have laws regulating charities and require registration before soliciting donations.

There have also been fraud and money laundering cases in NGOs in the USA, including large organisations. 

The US$1,5 million theft case at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, US$43 million of improper payments to grantees at The Global Fund and a US$26 million endowment write-off at New York University due to a fraudulent investment manager are some of the examples.

Because many of these organisations would not largely divulge information on cases of fraud for fear of losing funding, it therefore becomes Government’s obligation to ensure that these organisations are run transparently, and that the money they receive from donors is not used for sinister purposes such as sponsoring terrorism or fighting legitimately elected governments.

And the PVO Bill does just that.