Sri Lanka is once again at the center of a heated debate over civil liberties and government overreach. The Non-Governmental Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Bill, formally identified as L.D.-O. 6/2026, has drawn sharp criticism from academics, civil society leaders, and democracy advocates. The proposed legislation seeks to repeal and replace the Voluntary Social Services (Registration and Supervision) Act, No. 31 of 1980, and in doing so, dramatically expands the scope of state control over non-governmental organizations operating across the country. Critics argue that the bill is not only ineffective in achieving its stated goals but also fundamentally unjustified in a democratic society.
What the NGO Bill Proposes
At its core, the new bill goes far beyond the boundaries established by the 1980 legislation. The original Act focused narrowly on regulating "voluntary social service activity," defined as activities intended to provide relief or support to communities in need. The new bill, however, seeks to extend government supervision well beyond this limited scope, casting a far wider net over civil society organizations. Under the proposed framework, a broader range of NGO activities would fall under mandatory registration and active government oversight, giving authorities significantly more power to monitor, regulate, and potentially restrict the operations of non-governmental bodies.
Professor Rohan Samarajiva, a prominent voice in Sri Lanka's technology and policy discourse, has been among the leading critics of the bill. His analysis highlights how the legislation represents a troubling expansion of state authority into spaces traditionally occupied by independent civil society. Rather than streamlining existing regulations or improving transparency, the bill introduces layers of bureaucratic control that many believe will stifle legitimate humanitarian and advocacy work.
Why Critics Call It Ineffective
One of the central arguments against the NGO Bill is that it simply will not achieve what its proponents claim it will. Supporters of the legislation argue that tighter regulation is necessary to prevent misuse of foreign funding, ensure accountability, and protect national security interests. However, critics point out that the existing legal framework already provides sufficient tools to address these concerns when properly enforced.
Introducing sweeping new legislation without first addressing the enforcement gaps in current law is widely seen as a misdirected approach. If the government's genuine concern is financial transparency and accountability, targeted reforms to existing financial reporting requirements would be far more effective than an entirely new supervisory regime. The bill, as written, appears more likely to burden legitimate organizations with excessive compliance costs than to root out any genuinely problematic actors.
Furthermore, experienced NGOs with access to legal resources will likely find ways to navigate the new regulatory environment, while smaller grassroots organizations — often the most impactful at the community level — may be forced to shut down entirely due to the administrative and financial demands of compliance. This unintended consequence would ultimately harm the very communities the bill claims to protect.
The Question of Justification
Beyond effectiveness, there is a deeper question of whether such legislation is justified at all within a democratic framework. Sri Lanka's constitution guarantees freedoms of association and expression, rights that are directly implicated by legislation that subjects civil society organizations to heightened government scrutiny and control. The NGO sector plays a vital role in filling gaps left by the state, providing essential services in health, education, disaster relief, and human rights advocacy.
Internationally, the pattern is well recognized. Governments that seek to curtail NGO activity often do so under the guise of national security or financial accountability, but the practical effect is the suppression of dissent and the weakening of democratic institutions. Human rights organizations globally have flagged Sri Lanka's proposed bill as consistent with this troubling trend, comparing it to similar legislation enacted in countries with deteriorating civil liberties records.
The timing of the bill also raises questions. Sri Lanka is still navigating a fragile economic recovery following its historic financial crisis. Civil society organizations have been instrumental in supporting vulnerable populations during this period. Introducing legislation that threatens to curtail their operations at this particular moment seems not only unjustified but counterproductive to the nation's broader recovery goals.
What Needs to Happen Instead
Rather than pushing forward with a bill that has attracted widespread condemnation, the Sri Lankan government should engage in meaningful dialogue with civil society stakeholders. If genuine concerns about accountability exist, those concerns should be addressed through transparent, consultative, and proportionate policy measures. Reforms that enhance financial reporting standards, improve existing enforcement mechanisms, and promote genuine transparency would be far more defensible — both legally and morally.
Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads. The NGO Bill, as currently drafted, risks damaging the country's democratic credentials, undermining civil society, and ultimately proving ineffective at solving the problems it claims to target. The government would do well to listen to the growing chorus of informed criticism and reconsider this deeply flawed piece of legislation before it becomes law.