In December 2020, the Ugandan government’s Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) froze the bank accounts of at least four human rights groups. The government prompted the freezes based on faulty AML/CFT suspicions that the CSOs were involved in “terrorism financing activities”. However, experts pointed out that the real motive behind the account freezing was the FIA’s desire to crack down on CSOs critical of the government leading up to the January 14th election polls. Two of the accounts specifically mentioned in the ruling are those associated with NGO Forum and the Uganda Women’s Network (UWONET).
The NGO Forum and UWONET spoke out against the freezes, stating that the government needed to back up their faulty claims with substantive evidence. Additionally, CSOs located in Bugisu and Bukedi contributed to the justified outcry by asking the government to unfreeze the accounts. All CSOs involved in the pushback rightly contested that the government’s actions prevented citizens from having full access to civic education provided by the rights groups, which was particularly troubling during the decisive period surrounding the elections.
On February 19th, 2021, FIA released a letter officially revoking its decision to freeze the accounts. In their response, CSOs urged the government to shift its perspective away from unfairly viewing CSOs as enemies, and instead to recognise that CSOs are necessary and helpful contributors to the country’s development.
For an additional overview, read on here.
State persecuting human rights defenders
In a similar crackdown effort, authorities arrested Nicholas Opiyo, a human rights lawyer and executive director of Chapter Four Uganda, and four of his colleagues on money laundering charges. Chapter Four stated the funds in question were a grant from one of the organisation’s reputable, recurring donors, who legally supports Chapter Four’s work of promoting and protecting human rights. In September 2021, prosecutors finally dropped the money laundering charges and discontinued the proceedings against Opiyo, not bringing the case before court. Opiyo's lawyer said that this proved that due process had not been followed and it became apparent that there was no tenable case against his client.
You can read more about the case here.
