1) The law was issued in a hasty way.

2) It sets many restrictions on the activities of NGOs.

3) NGOs were not involved in the process of formulating the law.

4) It (the law) tightens the control of the administrative authority over NGOs.

Responding to these claims, the Ministry of Insurance & Social Affairs would like to stress the following points:-

• The government has issued the new law in response to frequent calls by the civil society, NGos and intellectuals who felt who felt the need for reforming law 32 for 1964 which regulates the ctivities of NGOs.

• The process of drafting and formulating the law took its due course of time, having been contemplated for several years earlier.

• Actual preparation for the law was initiated specifically in September 30,1997, in the form of an exchange of view and ideas on its basic principles, philosophy and broad lines with more than 400 representative of NGOs.

• Two drafting committees were set up;an expanded committee and a limited one in which NGOs and even human rights organizations were represented.

• The two drafting committees examined the different views on the proposed draft, incorporated them where possible or modified them to fit in with the different needs and requirements.

• Some MPS, particularly of the People's Assembly's Religious and Social Affairs Committee, were closely watching this ongoing process to which they contributed with their views.

• Thus, it becomes clear that the new law had been duly discussed and deliberated prior to its adoption.

Second, the claim that the law limits the scope of activities for NGOs.

• A mere reading of the provisions of this law dismisses this claim as groundless and far from the truth. A part from those activities which run contrary to the constitution, the law permits NGOs to perform in all fields related to the various aspects of community development, leaving it for the Executive Statute to provide for the rules and procedures thereof. There is no intervention in specifying these fields, which reflects the liberty with which NGOs can exercise their activities according to the fields which they have chosen including those pertaining to human rights.

• Banning NGOs from engaging in partisan or syndicate activities as prescribed by the political parties and the syndicate laws is the only restriction imposed on their activities. Apart from this, any other activity is accordingly permissible.

• The newly promulgated law, thus, opens the door for all voluntary entities, including those not previously registered under the previous law 32 for 1964 to practice community based development activities; human rights organizations is no exception.

Third, the claim that NGOs were not involved in formulating the draft bill.

• Since its initial stage of preparation, it was planned to present the draft bill for discussion by 400 of the representative of voluntary organizations

• Representatives from NGOs and Human Rights organizations participated in the two drafting committees. 

• Not content with the above, MOSA discussed the draft bill through the media, so that all citizens could contribute their views in the process.

• Mosa made it a point that all the voluntary sector, academics, businessmen and representatives of political parties had participated in drafting the bill, thus setting an unprecedented model of public participation

Fourth, the claim of tightening the control of the administrative authority.

MOSA stresses the fact that law 153 for 1999 has detracted and limited the administrative authority's control over the NGOs, citing the following as evidence:

• The previous law (32 for 1964) empowered the administrative authority with 22 forms of control which were scrapped in the present law. To cite just a few examples:-

• The Administrative authority no longer has the right to dissolve a board of diretor.

• It no longer has the right to draw up its internal statute.

• It no longer has the right to appoint an interim board of directors for three years, nor does it have the right to appoint a director for the same period. 

• The authority to dissolve an association is retained by the general assembly, or it can only be dissolved through a decision by the concerned court. This is unlikely to occur except in a very few limited cases.

The new law stipulates that should the administrative authority raise any objection in respect to an organization, the latter will have the right to resort to the Judiciary according to the rules set out by the law.

• As to the right to assign the powers of the board to one of its members the administrative authority will be empowered to do so where the members of the board fail to reach a quorum for their convention. In this case, this assignee will serve for 60 days at most, and he will have the sole power of calling the board for convention.