11. Repression of NGOs and the political opposition
Independent NGOs have long faced systematic restrictions, but the severity and extent of repression have grown in recent months. Although the legal framework does not explicitly ban NGOs or independent associations, it effectively makes their operations impossible. Organisations that try to operate without registration are deemed illegal, and their staff risk criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, foreign organisations encounter complex accreditation requirements and can be expelled at any time. In practice, the law maintains the appearance of legality while ensuring that independent civil society cannot function effectively.
Legal requirements for registration are influenced by political conditions, which means that many NGOs are unable to obtain official status. Foreign funding, vital for most independent groups, is effectively restricted by legislation. Even informal initiatives face harassment, raids, and prosecutions.
In 2014, the Venice Commission of the CoE issued an opinion on Azerbaijan’s amended Law on Non-Governmental Organisations, warning that the new restrictions – including burdensome registration requirements, bans on foreign funding, excessive reporting obligations, and harsh penalties – posed serious threats to the freedom of association and the independence of NGOs. The Commission found that the amendments deviated from international human rights standards, granting excessive powers to state authorities at the expense of civil society. It concluded that the amendments diverge from international human rights standards and provide overly broad discretion to state authorities at the expense of civil society. Although consultations and dialogue on the legislation occurred in subsequent years, the restrictive framework remained unchanged and was ultimately utilised as a legal instrument to suppress civil society.
In recent years, many civil society organisations have tried to adapt to restrictive legal frameworks by adopting alternative operational models. Instead of relying solely on grants, some pursued service contracts – usually intended for businesses – in order to circumvent the restrictions. However, these strategies often put organisations under increased scrutiny, leading in several cases to accusations of “illegal entrepreneurship”, subsequent sanctions, and, in some instances, direct persecution and criminal charges.
The wave of arrests has significantly chilled civil society, forcing many activists to relocate abroad. Those who stay face ongoing risks of retaliation, which further weakens the sector’s capacity, resilience, and ability to carry out its mandate.
Contrary to calls from advocacy groups and international organisations to improve the environment for civil society, on 31 July 2025, the President of Azerbaijan enacted legislation further tightening regulations on NGOs. The new legislation imposes stricter oversight on activities funded by foreign entities, requiring all such contracts to be registered with a designated executive authority. Most importantly, it forbids any banking or financial transactions related to foreign-funded agreements that have not been officially registered.
The overall restrictive legal and political environment also limits the space for opposition activities. Opposition political parties in Azerbaijan face significant legal and practical barriers that almost prevent them from engaging in meaningful political participation. Under the 2023 Law on Political Parties, registration requirements have become much stricter, including a five-fold increase in required membership and invasive state oversight of party funding and activities. Parties risk suspension or dissolution through courts that lack independence, while many are entirely denied registration.
In practice, opposition groups are excluded from elections, deprived of media access, and subjected to harassment, arrests, and politically motivated prosecutions. As a result, Azerbaijan’s political space is dominated by the ruling party, leaving virtually no room for pluralism or genuine opposition.
The case of Ali Karimli, chair of the Popular Front Party, demonstrates the government’s tactic of incapacitation through legal and administrative measures. Since 2006, he has been unable to travel internationally as the government administration has refused to issue him a passport. In 2020, the authorities further restricted his access to the Internet and phone, trying to isolate him from both domestic supporters and international partners. These measures fall short of formal imprisonment yet achieve the same effect: silencing dissent and eroding organisational capacity.
Another prominent opposition leader, Tofig Yagublu, has recently been sentenced to nine years in prison on charges of fraud and document forgery. Yagublu, a longstanding government critic, has faced years of repression and has been detained eight times in the past.