* As they demand rescissions of de-registration of 36 organisations by NGORA who failed to comply in submitting annual reporting requirements
* We recognise and respect NGORA’s statutory mandate to regulate NGOs and enforce compliance with the Non-Governmental Organisations Act (Cap. 5:05), as amended in 2022
* We equally acknowledge that NGOs have a legal obligation to maintain proper records, submit statutory reports, account for resources and comply with applicable regulatory requirements
* Our objection is, therefore, not directed at the principle of regulation or the legitimate enforcement of statutory obligations
By Duncan Mlanjira
The country’s major NGOs have issued are alleging that the Non-Governmental Organizations (Reporting) Regulations, 2024, purportedly made under section 35(1)(a) of the NGO Act — was not gazetted.
This is contained in a statement issued on November 7, objecting the decision by Non-Governmental Organisations Regulatory Authority (NGORA) to de-register 36 organisations, who failed to comply in submitting annual reporting requirements.
Advertisement
The NGOs thus demands that NGORA should rescind the deregistration decisions by instituting “a proportionate, fair and supportive compliance process for the affected organisations”.
“At the outset, we recognise and respect NGORA’s statutory mandate to regulate NGOs and enforce compliance with the Non-Governmental Organisations Act (Cap. 5:05), as amended in 2022.
“We equally acknowledge that NGOs have a legal obligation to maintain proper records, submit statutory reports, account for resources and comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
“Our objection is, therefore, not directed at the principle of regulation or the legitimate enforcement of statutory obligations.
“Rather, it concerns the proportionality, procedural fairness, justification and potentially far-reaching consequences of deregistration as an enforcement measure, particularly where less restrictive corrective measures may be available.”
The senior NGOs thus raise what they describe as “a fundamental legal concern regarding the apparent non-gazettement of the Non-Governmental Organizations (Reporting) Regulations, 2024, purportedly made under section 35(1)(a) of the NGO Act”.
“We question whether these Regulations were duly gazetted and brought into force in accordance with the law.
“NGORA must, therefore, establish their legal status before invoking them as a basis for regulatory enforcement.
“The principle of legality requires that regulatory obligations and sanctions derive from valid and legally operative law. If the Regulations were not duly gazetted or otherwise lawfully brought into force, they would have no binding legal effect, and any enforcement action founded solely upon them would be ultra vires — unlawful and liable to be set aside.
“Furthermore, even assuming the Regulations are legally operative, they cannot override or expand the powers conferred by the NGO Act.
“Regulations 2(6) and 8 concern non-renewal of registration, whereas section 23 of the Act governs suspension and cancellation, subject to mandatory procedural safeguards.
“These distinct legal consequences cannot be applied interchangeably,” says the statement, while calling upon NGORA “to provide proof of lawful gazettement and commencement of the Regulations, identify the precise statutory basis for each deregistration, and rescind any decision unsupported by valid law or undertaken contrary to section 23(3) of the NGO Act and section 43 of the Constitution.”
The senior NGOs further question “whether the particular reporting requirements invoked were lawfully applicable and capable of supporting cancellation under the Act”.
They further highlight their argument under:
Statutory mandate and proportionality of enforcement
The NGO Act establishes a regulatory framework intended not merely to secure compliance, but also to facilitate the effective functioning and development of NGOs within an enabling environment.
Section 3 of the Act sets out objectives that include promoting a strong and independent civil society and facilitating the effective functioning of NGOs.
These objectives must inform the interpretation and exercise of NGORA’s regulatory powers.
Sections 18 and 23 of the Act provide for regulatory intervention, including withholding, suspension and cancellation of registration where the applicable statutory grounds are established.
Importantly, section 23(1) confers discretionary authority rather than imposing mandatory cancellation for every instance of non-compliance.
The exercise of such discretion must be guided by legality, reasonableness, procedural fairness and proportionality.
The existence of different regulatory responses requires the Authority to consider the nature, gravity, duration and circumstances of each violation before determining an appropriate sanction.
The NGOs thus maintains that in their “considered view, enforcement should ordinarily follow a graduated and corrective approach, beginning, where appropriate, with compliance notices, warnings, opportunities to remedy defaults and other sanctions authorised by law, before resorting to suspension or cancellation.
“Deregistration should, therefore, remain a measure of last resort, particularly where non-compliance is administrative, remediable or attributable to demonstrable institutional and financial constraints.
“It is important to distinguish between an NGO that has continued receiving and administering substantial funding while persistently disregarding reporting and accountability requirements, and one that has remained dormant or financially distressed for several years.
“Although both remain subject to the law, their circumstances may warrant different regulatory responses.
“A blanket approach that fails to appreciate these distinctions risks converting regulatory discretion into an unnecessarily punitive mechanism, contrary to the broader objectives of the Act.”
Advertisement
Procedural fairness and individual assessment
The NGOs argue that “Section 23(3) of the Act requires, before cancellation or suspension of registration, at least 30 days’ prior written notice to the affected NGO at its last known address and an opportunity to be heard, either verbally or in writing, as determined by the Board”.
“These are substantive statutory safeguards intended to protect affected organisations against arbitrary or unjustified administrative decisions.
“They are reinforced by section 43 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to lawful and procedurally fair administrative action and, where rights, freedoms, legitimate expectations or interests are affected, the right to be furnished with reasons in writing.”
They take note that the public notice that NGORA issued in The Daily Times of November 4, 2026 “does not disclose whether each of the 36 organisations received the prescribed
notice, was afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond, or had its particular circumstances individually assessed”.
“We do not presume that these statutory procedures were disregarded. However, given the seriousness of the decisions, it is incumbent upon the Authority to demonstrate that the relevant requirements were satisfied in each case and that the decisions were based on a fair and reasonable assessment of the circumstances.”
In particular, the NGOs observe that NGORA “should establish whether affected organisations were given realistic opportunities to remedy their defaults and whether mitigating circumstances, including prolonged inactivity, funding constraints and institutional challenges, were adequately considered.
“Regulatory enforcement must not become an end in itself. Its principal purpose should be to secure compliance, strengthen accountability and preserve the integrity of the sector.
Advertisement
Non-compliance with the statutory composition of the NGORA Board
The senior NGOs also raise serious concerns regarding “the apparent non-compliance with the statutory composition of the NGORA Board” — and quote Section 7(1)(b) of the NGO Act, as amended by Act No. 19 of 2022, that “expressly requires one member nominated by the Malawi Law Society (MLS)”.
“However, we understand that the Board continues to operate without the prescribed MLS representative, with no apparent steps taken to facilitate the appointment.
“This omission raises fundamental questions concerning compliance with the law, institutional legitimacy and the integrity of the Board’s decision-making processes.
“Statutory representation is a legal requirement, not an administrative discretion. Although section 11(4) protects decisions from invalidity arising solely from a vacancy, it does not relieve the responsible authorities of their obligation to ensure that the Board is constituted in accordance with the Act.
“We, therefore, call upon NGORA to clarify the continued absence of MLS representation, disclose the steps taken to secure the prescribed nomination and appointment, and facilitate immediate compliance with section 7(1)(b).
“The Board must also demonstrate that the disputed deregistration decisions were undertaken in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements.”
Distinction between legal personality and regulatory registration
“A fundamental legal distinction must be maintained between the incorporation or legal personality of an NGO and its registration with NGORA.
“Section 20(1) of the NGO Act contemplates registration by organisations already recognised as legal persons under the laws of Malawi, while section 21 addresses the regulatory significance of an NGO registration certificate.
“Accordingly, where an NGO derives its legal personality from incorporation under the Trustees Incorporation Act or another applicable law, cancellation of its NGORA registration should not automatically be equated with dissolution of the incorporated legal entity.
“The continued existence or dissolution of such an entity must be determined in accordance with the legislation governing its incorporation.
“Nevertheless, cancellation of NGORA registration may have severe consequences for an organisation’s lawful operations, fundraising, institutional partnerships, contractual relationships and continued pursuit of its public-benefit objectives.
“This distinction is particularly important because regulatory deregistration should not be treated as though it necessarily extinguishes an organisation’s underlying legal existence.
“We, therefore, call upon NGORA to clarify the legal consequences of its decisions, including their implications for previously incorporated entities, existing assets, contractual obligations and future eligibility for registration.”
Advertisement
Uncertainty surrounding restoration of registration
The NGOs further express concern about “the absence of a clearly articulated and accessible mechanism through which organisations whose registrations have been cancelled may regularise their status and resume lawful operations”.
“The 2022 amendments do not appear to establish an express, comprehensive restoration procedure applicable to all deregistered organisations.
“This raises legitimate questions about whether, and under what conditions, an affected organisation may regain its regulatory status.
“Consider an NGO that has remained without funding for 15 years, has no functional secretariat and has consequently struggled to submit statutory reports.
“If that organisation subsequently secures funding in 2027 and wishes to resume its public-benefit activities, what practical and legal avenue will be available to it?
“The uncertainty is significant. An enforcement decision should not unnecessarily foreclose the future recovery of an otherwise legitimate organisation, particularly where the underlying default is capable of remedy.
“In the absence of a clear restoration mechanism, deregistration may have consequences extending well beyond the immediate compliance failure, potentially depriving communities of future services and undermining years of institutional investment.
“We, therefore, urge the Board to clarify the applicable procedures for restoration or fresh registration, where permitted by law, and to consider whether legislative or regulatory reform is necessary to address any existing gaps.”
Regulatory fees, institutional support and capacity development
The NGOs further observes that “since the establishment of the former NGO Board, NGOs have been required to pay various regulatory fees and charges”.
“While we recognise that these payments may legitimately support regulatory administration and other authorised functions, the sector is entitled to understand how the resources collected contribute to the effective functioning and development of NGOs.
“We acknowledge that NGORA may have undertaken certain capacity-building and compliance-related initiatives. However, there remains a legitimate question as to whether such support has been sufficiently systematic, accessible and responsive to the needs of smaller, under-resourced and financially distressed organisations.
“For many NGOs, non-compliance is not necessarily a manifestation of deliberate disregard for the law. It may arise from prolonged funding gaps, inadequate administrative capacity, the absence of permanent secretariats or limited technical knowledge of regulatory requirements.
“These challenges do not extinguish statutory obligations, but they are relevant considerations in determining appropriate regulatory responses.
“We, therefore, call for greater transparency regarding the collection and utilisation of regulatory fees, including the resources allocated to institutional development, compliance assistance and capacity-building programmes.
“We further propose the establishment of a structured compliance-support mechanism through which struggling NGOs may access technical guidance, reporting assistance, reasonable compliance schedules and, where resources and applicable law permit, targeted financial or institutional support.
“An effective regulator should not merely identify non-compliance and impose sanctions. It should also facilitate practical opportunities for regulated institutions to achieve and sustain compliance.
Implications for civic space and the public interest
“Civil society organisations are important actors in advancing constitutional governance, public accountability, social services, community development and the protection of vulnerable populations.
“Sections 32 and 43 of the Constitution, concerning freedom of association and administrative justice respectively, provide an important constitutional framework within which regulatory decisions affecting NGOs must be assessed.
“Although freedom of association does not exempt organisations from lawful regulation, regulatory restrictions and administrative sanctions must be exercised consistently with constitutional requirements and the public interest.
“The deregistration of 36 organisations raises broader concerns about the predictability and accessibility of the regulatory environment, particularly for organisations whose operations depend on intermittent donor support.
“An excessively punitive approach risks discouraging civic participation, weakening institutional continuity and undermining the very objectives that the NGO Act seeks to advance.
“The ultimate measure of regulatory effectiveness should not be the number of organisations deregistered, but the extent to which regulation promotes compliance, accountability, institutional sustainability and public confidence.
“It is, therefore, essential that NGORA’s decisions demonstrate an appropriate balance between the legitimate demands of accountability and the equally important obligation to foster an enabling environment for civil society.”
The NGOs thus maintain that “regulatory enforcement must be lawful, procedurally fair, proportionate and consistent with NGORA’s statutory responsibility to facilitate an enabling environment for civil society”.
“The circumstances surrounding the deregistration decisions warrant corrective intervention by the Board,” says the statement, while requesting NGORA Board to:
1. Rescind the deregistration decisions affecting the 36 NGOs and take all necessary lawful administrative steps to restore their regulatory status, without prejudice to NGORA’s authority to pursue appropriate compliance measures in individual cases;
2. Undertake individual compliance assessments to establish the nature, gravity and circumstances of each organisation’s alleged non-compliance, distinguishing deliberate or persistent violations from remediable administrative defaults arising from inactivity, financial hardship or institutional constraints;
3. Adopt a graduated and proportionate enforcement framework, prioritising compliance notices, corrective measures and other lawful sanctions before resorting to deregistration as a measure of last resort;
4. Clarify the legal implications of deregistration, particularly the distinction between cancellation of NGORA registration and the continued legal personality of organisations incorporated under other applicable laws;
5. Establish a structured compliance-support mechanism through which financially distressed or administratively constrained NGOs may obtain technical assistance, reasonable compliance schedules and other appropriate institutional support;
6. Provide greater transparency regarding the utilisation of regulatory fees, including the extent to which such resources support NGO capacity development and compliance assistance;
7. Clarify the legal and administrative pathways for restoration or fresh registration, where permissible, and identify any legislative or regulatory reforms required to address existing gaps; and
8. Convene a structured dialogue with the undersigned organisations, CONGOMA, affected organisations and other civil society stakeholders to develop a fair, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework.
Advertisement
They also ask the NGORA Board “to communicate its decision on the rescission of the deregistration decisions within 14 days of receipt of this letter, together with the proposed measures for addressing any outstanding statutory compliance obligations”.
“Should the matter remain unresolved within the stipulated period, we reserve the right to pursue appropriate measures as may be necessary in the circumstances.”
The statement is copied to Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability & Community Affairs; Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs; Council for Non Governmental Organisations in Malawi (CONGOMA); and the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC).