The deregistration of the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) has triggered fresh legal debate over the organisation’s status, its ability to operate and the constitutional freedoms enjoyed by its members.
Legal experts and practising lawyers have clarified that the cancellation of an organisation’s registration under the NGO Act does not necessarily erase its separate legal identity or strip its members of their constitutional rights.
Legal expert Benedicto Kondowe explained that registration under the NGO Act and incorporation under the Trustees Incorporation Act serve different purposes, with the former authorising an organisation to operate as an NGO and the latter potentially granting it an independent legal personality.
Kondowe said NGORA’s decision would not automatically extinguish HRDC’s legal personality if the coalition had been separately incorporated under the Trustees Incorporation Act or another applicable law.
He, however, cautioned that retaining legal personality would not give HRDC permission to continue operating as an NGO without the registration required by law.
Kondowe further pointed to Sections 32, 35 and 38 of the Constitution, which protect freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly, respectively, arguing that these fundamental rights remain available to HRDC members despite the deregistration.
Practising lawyer Chawezi Maseko Phiri drew attention to Section 23(3) of the NGO Act, which requires the regulator to issue an organisation with at least 30 days’ written notice before cancelling its registration and provide an opportunity for it to be heard.
Phiri said these safeguards are mandatory and intended to ensure that organisations facing regulatory action have a meaningful opportunity to respond before a final decision is reached.
He acknowledged that failure to meet statutory reporting requirements could provide grounds for deregistration under Section 23(1)(b), but emphasised that NGORA must exercise its powers within the law and observe procedural fairness.
On demonstrations, Phiri maintained that HRDC members and supporters retain their constitutional rights to associate, express their opinions and assemble peacefully, regardless of the coalition’s registration status.
Another practising lawyer, Stafford Chiputula, raised a different legal question concerning whether HRDC itself can continue exercising constitutional rights in its own name following deregistration.
Chiputula argued that the coalition’s legal personality is central to determining whether it retains the capacity to organise demonstrations as an organisation, noting that Section 38 extends the right to peaceful assembly to both natural and legal persons.
On possible remedies, Kondowe said HRDC could approach the High Court through judicial review if it believes NGORA acted unlawfully, unfairly or beyond the powers granted under the law.
He added that the coalition could seek an interim court order suspending the deregistration while its legal challenge is being considered, although the decision to grant such relief would rest with the court.
Phiri identified possible grounds for challenging the decision as failure to observe statutory procedures, breach of natural justice, disregard of relevant representations and exercise of powers beyond the regulator’s legal mandate.
NGORA deregistered HRDC with effect from November 3, 2026, citing its failure to submit audited financial statements and annual returns for 2023, 2024 and 2025, alongside failure to update its governance records.
HRDC has indicated that it intends to challenge the decision in court while maintaining its position that it will continue operating as a civil society organisation, setting the stage for a legal contest over regulatory authority, organisational status and constitutional freedoms.
Legal experts and practising lawyers have clarified that the cancellation of an organisation’s registration under the NGO Act does not necessarily erase its separate legal identity or strip its members of their constitutional rights.
Legal expert Benedicto Kondowe explained that registration under the NGO Act and incorporation under the Trustees Incorporation Act serve different purposes, with the former authorising an organisation to operate as an NGO and the latter potentially granting it an independent legal personality.
Kondowe said NGORA’s decision would not automatically extinguish HRDC’s legal personality if the coalition had been separately incorporated under the Trustees Incorporation Act or another applicable law.
He, however, cautioned that retaining legal personality would not give HRDC permission to continue operating as an NGO without the registration required by law.
Kondowe further pointed to Sections 32, 35 and 38 of the Constitution, which protect freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly, respectively, arguing that these fundamental rights remain available to HRDC members despite the deregistration.
Practising lawyer Chawezi Maseko Phiri drew attention to Section 23(3) of the NGO Act, which requires the regulator to issue an organisation with at least 30 days’ written notice before cancelling its registration and provide an opportunity for it to be heard.
Phiri said these safeguards are mandatory and intended to ensure that organisations facing regulatory action have a meaningful opportunity to respond before a final decision is reached.
He acknowledged that failure to meet statutory reporting requirements could provide grounds for deregistration under Section 23(1)(b), but emphasised that NGORA must exercise its powers within the law and observe procedural fairness.
On demonstrations, Phiri maintained that HRDC members and supporters retain their constitutional rights to associate, express their opinions and assemble peacefully, regardless of the coalition’s registration status.
Another practising lawyer, Stafford Chiputula, raised a different legal question concerning whether HRDC itself can continue exercising constitutional rights in its own name following deregistration.
Chiputula argued that the coalition’s legal personality is central to determining whether it retains the capacity to organise demonstrations as an organisation, noting that Section 38 extends the right to peaceful assembly to both natural and legal persons.
On possible remedies, Kondowe said HRDC could approach the High Court through judicial review if it believes NGORA acted unlawfully, unfairly or beyond the powers granted under the law.
He added that the coalition could seek an interim court order suspending the deregistration while its legal challenge is being considered, although the decision to grant such relief would rest with the court.
Phiri identified possible grounds for challenging the decision as failure to observe statutory procedures, breach of natural justice, disregard of relevant representations and exercise of powers beyond the regulator’s legal mandate.
NGORA deregistered HRDC with effect from November 3, 2026, citing its failure to submit audited financial statements and annual returns for 2023, 2024 and 2025, alongside failure to update its governance records.
HRDC has indicated that it intends to challenge the decision in court while maintaining its position that it will continue operating as a civil society organisation, setting the stage for a legal contest over regulatory authority, organisational status and constitutional freedoms.
