Concerns Escalate as Peru Enacts Controversial Anti-NGO Law

Peru’s Congress passed a troubling anti-NGO law that limits organizations from pursuing legal action against the state for human rights violations. Critics, including human rights groups, warn this undermines access to justice for vulnerable populations and enhances government oversight over non-profits. The law reflects broader efforts to curtail civil liberties and has drawn widespread condemnation.

Human rights organizations in Peru have expressed significant concern over a controversial law recently passed by Congress, which restricts civil society organizations from pursuing legal action against the state for human rights violations. Activists warn that this newly amended law undermines access to justice for vulnerable populations. The amendment was hastily approved with 81 votes in favor, 16 against, and four abstentions, amplifying government oversight over non-profit entities and foreign aid.

This law is part of a concerning trend involving governmental attempts to roll back civil liberties and undermining press freedom in Peru, raising international alarm. Approval ratings for President Dina Boluarte and Congress have plummeted to less than 5%. Proponents of the law argue that it enhances transparency in funding and improves governmental supervision of foreign involvement in domestic affairs.

Ahead of the legislative vote, lawmaker Alejandro Aguinaga criticized NGOs, claiming they exploit international cooperation for personal gain at the expense of Peru’s impoverished citizens. Aguinaga, a former health minister, has faced accusations regarding the forced sterilization of Indigenous women, which casts doubt on his motivations.

Carlos Rivera, the director of the Legal Defense Institute, termed the legislation a “simply brutal” infringement on civil rights. He remarked that the law could have disastrous implications for legal representation of victims of human rights violations, most of whom depend on NGOs for support. Rivera highlighted the seriousness of the penalties, which include fines up to $500,000 for NGOs that litigate against governmental bodies.

Rivera drew parallels to the unconstitutional 1995 amnesty laws that previously shielded military and police personnel from prosecution for human rights abuses committed during the country’s conflict from 1980 to 2000. These laws were ultimately invalidated due to their conflict with international human rights standards.

Julia Urrunaga, director of the Environmental Investigation Agency in Peru, countered claims regarding NGO accountability, asserting that these organizations have maintained compliance with regulations imposed by the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) for over two decades. She emphasized that the new law inhibits NGOs from operating independently, which is detrimental to human rights advocacy.

The regional organization representing Amazon Indigenous communities, Orpio, condemned the law as a “serious step backwards” in the pursuit of justice and fundamental rights for Indigenous peoples. Peru’s history—which encompasses military rule and corruption—has underscored the pivotal role of civil organizations in fostering national development.

The ultra-conservative right in Peru has utilized narratives suggesting that USAid funds have been misallocated for political endeavors, which was exemplified when former President Donald Trump drastically reduced foreign aid initiatives. In a recent speech, President Boluarte criticized human rights discourse as an ideological tool undermining state authority and societal order. Meanwhile, she faces an investigation related to numerous deaths during anti-government protests and allegations of accepting bribes, which she has denied.

The passage of the anti-NGO law in Peru raises serious concerns about the future of human rights and legal accountability in the nation. The legislation limits the capabilities of civil society organizations to seek justice for victims of state abuses and casts doubt on the government’s commitment to supporting fundamental rights. As civil society plays an essential role in advocating for the marginalized, the law’s implications warrant significant attention and action from both national and international observers.

Original Source: www.theguardian.com