The Global Slavery Index 2023

Regional: Arab States (Part 4)

​By placing control over entry, exit, work, and residence in the hands of employers, the system leaves migrant workers vulnerable to exploitation and modern slavery, particularly in domestic work, construction, hospitality, and sectors where seasonal work is common. Variations of the kafala system exist in Jordan, Lebanon, and the GCC countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Collectively, the Arab States region is home to more than 24 million migrant workers, comprising over 40 per cent of the labour force — the highest share of any region. 
 
What is the kafala system? 
The kafala system is a set of laws and policies that delegate responsibility for migrant workers to employers, including control over their ability to enter, reside, work, and, in some cases, exit the host country. Workers typically cannot leave or change jobs prior to completion of their contract, before a certain time period, or without permission from their employer. Those who do leave may run the risk of arrest and deportation for the crime of absconding. The system also limits the ability of exploited workers to access justice. In practice, a worker who leaves their job not only risks losing their means of earning an income, but also risks becoming an illegal migrant. This threatens their ability to pursue legal action against their employer and recover any income they are owed. If deported, workers may also face bans on returning to the country to work. Legal redress is made even more difficult by prolonged, expensive court processes, limited legal assistance, and the absence of interpreters. Some employers reportedly create additional barriers to justice; for example, by levelling false allegations of theft against migrant workers in retaliation for leaving or filing false absconding reports with law enforcement to avoid paying wages owed. Migrant workers can be deported even where no evidence exists to support the accusations, while employers enjoy impunity.
 
What are the origins of the kafala system? 
The differences between past and present understandings of the kafala system are vast. In classical Arabic, the term kafala referred to relationships between an authority figure or person with power (the kafeel) and a vulnerable or relatively weaker person (the makfūl), whereby the kafeel would take legal responsibility for the makfūl without benefitting from the relationship. Specifically, kafala meant “to guarantee” (as one would a business loan) and “to take care of” (for example, become the legal guardian of orphaned children). The traditional interpretation of kafala as a form of alternative care is recognised in international law, and may still be practiced in modern settings; for example, in the care of orphaned children and unaccompanied refugee minors However, the understanding of the system as a means of protection, trust, and social solidarity has largely been eclipsed by the widespread oppression of migrant workers under its present- day application as a sponsorship process.

This divergence between past and present applications highlights the lingering impact of colonialism. 
 
The first example of present kafala was reportedly in the pearl diving industry in the British Colonial Protectorate of Bahrain in the 1920s, and subsequently spread throughout other colonies in the Gulf states. In Bahrain, colonial administrators used the kafala system to facilitate the entry of migrant workers to fill perceived labour shortages on British-owned pearl diving ships while exerting their control over a foreign labour force by ensuring an acceptable kafeel took legal responsibility for the workers. Most pearl divers were bound to their ship by debt and subject to abusive labour practices while onboard. The repression of migrant workers is now entrenched in law and social norms. While present kafala is upheld by sponsorship requirements rather than debt, both national and foreign employers today benefit from the disproportionate control the kafala system provides over workers. Infantilising attitudes that position migrant workers as in need of protection justify restrictions on their mobility 
 
Modern slavery experiences in Lebanon and Kuwait 
Female migrant domestic workers face specific challenges under the kafala system. Globally, patriarchal norms that devalue domestic labour as “women’s work” confine women within the household and make them less visible to authorities. In high-income countries, domestic work is typically performed by low-paid female migrants who fill gaps in care driven by the curtailing of social welfare. These workers are subject to constant surveillance and face higher risks of gender-based violence, discrimination, and exploitation within their employer’s households. With their movements heavily restricted, it is even more difficult for victims to leave situations of abuse.
 
In 2020, Walk Free interviewed 30 female survivors of domestic servitude who were exploited in Lebanon and Kuwait. Respondents came from six countries, including Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, the Philippines, and Sierra Leone, and were employed in Kuwait and Lebanon, where strict versions of the kafala system operate. While migrants do not require an exit permit to depart Lebanon or Kuwait, all other elements of the kafala system are present. In Lebanon, migrants cannot leave their job without their employer’s permission and in Kuwait, domestic workers must receive approval from the Ministry of Interior and Labour Court to transfer jobs without consent from their employer. Getting this approval requires workers to leave their employer’s household, which can lead to accusations of absconding and result in deportation: seeking help is not without significant risks for migrant domestic workers. The interviews highlighted the difficulties women faced when seeking to leave their situation. Three-quarters of respondents had limited or no access to a phone in at least one household where they worked, and more than half reported having their movements restricted, including by being locked inside places of employment or monitored on camera. Half of all respondents physically escaped their household, and five women were subsequently arrested by police despite having experienced abuse and mistreatment by their employers. At least nine respondents were deported or repatriated after leaving their workplace, however this number is likely higher given not all respondents reported how they returned home. 
 
Perceived or actual lack of protection prevented victims leaving situations of exploitation. Respondents reported that a lack of assistance from embassies, consulates, employment agencies, police, and beliefs that they could not turn to authorities were barriers to seeking help. While it is unclear how some respondents returned home, several were assisted by civil society organisations or family members, while few others had the cost of their tickets home paid for by their employers and agents. In one instance, a worker in Kuwait was required to pay her employer to be allowed to leave. For some workers, returning was further complicated by unpaid wages and confiscation of passports. When specifically asked if their documents were seized, all respondents in Cameroon reported that their passports were seized in Lebanon, where the practice is not outlawed, and in Kuwait, where passport withholding is illegal. 
 
Almost two-thirds of respondents paid fees to brokers in their country of origin or transit, including in Ethiopia and Guinea, where domestic laws prohibit workers being charged recruitment fees. Payment of fees increases risk of debt bondage in the Gulf states, where workers are forced to work for little or no pay in order to repay recruitment and related fees. While Kuwait and Jordan prohibit charging recruitment fees to migrant domestic workers, and the remaining kafala countries prohibit charging recruitment fees to all migrant workers, exorbitant fees are still passed on in practice. To cover these costs, some respondents borrowed money from family or arranged to pay the money when they began their job, which typically carried the false promise of a good salary and ultimately led to situations of debt bondage. Many respondents were also deceived about the nature and conditions of the work, with more than a third of them being promised an entirely different form of employment than domestic work. Among respondents in Cameroon, just under half did not sign a contract and some respondents signed contracts in a language they did not understand. Meanwhile, two Ethiopian migrant workers reported being encouraged to travel despite a temporary ban on labour migration to Gulf states being in effect at the time. 
 
Walk Free 2023. Global Slavery Index 2023. Minderoo Foundation Ltd. Australia.