Kafala system
The kafala system or kefala system (Arabic: نظام الكفالة niẓām al-kafāla, lit. 'sponsorship system') is a system in the Middle East that involves binding the residency and employment status of a migrant worker to a specific employer throughout the period of their residence in a country. Under this arrangement, the employer holds substantial authority over the worker, including the ability to approve or deny job changes, and permission to leave the country. This dependency creates a significant power imbalance that heightens the risk of exploitation and abusive practices.[2] It currently exists in many Arab countries, especially those in the Arabian Peninsula, with Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait also being very prominent.[3] A similar "binding system" existed in Israel until 2006, when the Israeli Supreme Court struck it down,[4] though it continues to be heavily practiced in certain industries.[5]
The system, which blocks domestic competition for overseas workers in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf,[6] requires migrant workers to have an in-country sponsor, usually their employer, who is responsible for their visa and legal status. This practice has been criticized by human rights organizations for creating easy opportunities for the exploitation of workers, as many employers confiscate their migrant workers' passports and abuse them with little chance of legal repercussions and even repatriation.[7][8] In 2014, the International Trade Union Confederation estimated that there were 2.4 million enslaved domestic workers in the Arab Gulf countries and the Levant. Virtually all of these enslaved workers were from West Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia.[9]
Etymology and origin
[edit]In the first decades of the 21st century, the migrant worker system became widely referred to the "kafala system" in English.[10][11] The word kafala comes from Arabic, and the related word kafeel refers to the local employment sponsor in the system.[12] In Islamic adoptional jurisprudence, "kafala" refers to the adoption of children.[13] The original law of kafala was expanded to include a system of fixed-term sponsorship of migrant workers in several countries in the late 20th century.[14] This modern system has its origins in labour practices related to pearl hunting.[12] In the Persian Gulf, the pearling industry was dominated by slave labour, and prior to the abolition of slavery in the 20th century, slaves were used as pearl divers.[15]
Kafala as a legal framework has roots in Sharia law, in which one party (the kafil) acts as a guarantor for another (the makful), where the former assumes legal responsibilities if the makful is unable to meet them. The arrangement generally takes two forms: one where the guarantor is responsible for the person himself—such as ensuring good conduct or appearance in court, similar to a bail system—and another where the guarantor assumes responsibility for the payment of a debt should the makful back out.[16]
Scholars offer differing explanations regarding the origins of the kafala system. Gilbert Beaugé argues that it "originated from an old Bedouin custom of granting protection to visitors."[17] Anh Longva suggests that the system is a "well-anchored" Kuwaiti tradition.[18] Omar al-Shehabi, on the other hand, argued that the modern kafala system "was a product of the British colonial era, particularly the period from the 1920s until independence in the 1970s". Al-Shehabi notes that British colonial administrators, who viewed migrant labour "as both a necessity and a problem that needed to be regulated and controlled", introduced sponsorship requirements to control the migration of labourers to the Gulf states.[19]
Workers' rights under kafala
[edit]In January 2024, domestic workers constituted approximately 32.4% of female employment in the Arab states.[20] Many continued to face various forms of abuse. According to the International Labour Organization, "The informal, unregulated and isolated nature of their work renders migrant domestic workers vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and forced labour. Often, they are denied many basic labour rights related to freedom of association, remuneration, working hours, periods of rest, retention of their identity documents, leave and freedom of movement outside the households they work in."[20]
Exploitation of migrant workers may occur even before their arrival in the host country. Private recruitment agencies, which oversee significant portions of the migration process, engage in unethical practices such as imposing high recruitment charges, withholding workers' identity documents, and offering incomplete or inaccurate information about rights and working conditions.[21] Recruitment also takes place through online social media chatrooms. For example, in March 2016, a closed Facebook group titled "Maids in Qatar," had nearly 9,000 members and featured dozens of weekly posts advertising or seeking domestic work. The Migrant Rights Research Open Repository argued that the lack of regulation of the chatrooms made workers vulnerable to traffickers.[22]
Government policies have contributed to irregular recruitment channels. As of 2018[update], the Philippines did not process employment contracts for workers bound for the United Arab Emirates, as the UAE had not permitted the Philippine labour attaché to verify contracts. This situation created a black market for Filipino domestic workers.[23]
Recruitment agencies often advertise the salary of domestic workers according to the country of origin of the workers.[24]
A 2024 Human Rights Watch report documented various labour rights violations impacting workers in the United Arab Emirates under the Kafala system. Employers were able to falsely charge workers for "absconding" in abusive situations, exposing workers to arrest, fines, and potentially deportation. Legal trade unions were absent. UAE based workers were also exposed to extreme weather conditions without sufficient protections.[25]
Independent human rights organizations have advocated for an end to abuses against migrant workers. The United Nations special rapporteur on the protection of the labour and human rights of migrants reported on the human rights violations against migrant workers, and called on states to "align domestic laws with international standards and improve enforcement mechanisms."[26]
Some instances of labour rights abuses led to governments imposing bans on their citizens working in the country where the abuses occurred.[27] One case involved Jeanelyn Villavende, a migrant worker from the Philippines who was killed in Kuwait in January 2020 following severe physical and sexual abuse by her employers. Her death led the Philippine government to implement a deployment ban on Filipino workers bound for Kuwait.[27]
These bans, while intended to protect migrant workers, may also place them in difficult circumstances. The International Labour Organization argued that the bans create difficulties for migrant women, citing a particular case in Nepal:
"The age ban and total ban had a number of unintended consequences for women, including making potential women migrant workers apprehensive about revealing their plans for fear of being stopped from migrating. Potential migrant women are no longer attending orientation and training and are becoming less active in seeking out information from official sources. Travelling irregularly also excluded women migrant domestic workers from the benefits of private insurance, and the Welfare Fund in Nepal, namely financial compensation in case of accident or death in destination countries ... [The ban] had reduced the power of recruitment agencies and strengthened unlicensed migrant agents operating out of villages that are associated with deception, fraud and trafficking of women. Finally, many described migration for work as the only economic opportunity available to women, as well as a personal opportunity to travel, to avoid early marriage or abusive and/or unwanted relationships."[28]
Programs and initiatives intended to strengthen labour protections were introduced in some countries. In Oman, the Social Protection Law (Royal Decree No. 52/2023) expanded social security coverage to include foreign workers, providing benefits such as workplace injury protection, sick leave, and maternity leave.[29] The government established individual accounts to finance end-of-service benefits for foreign workers.[29]
The Omani law includes a number of broader reforms related to employment conditions, disciplinary procedures, penalties, and time limits for filing claims, as well as compensation for unfair dismissal. Among its provisions, the law specifies that dismissals on discriminatory grounds—such as sex, origin, color, language, religion, creed, social status, disability, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, or labor-union affiliation—constitute unfair dismissal[29]. It outlines rules on working hours and types of leave and recognizes additional forms of employment, including casual, temporary, part-time, and remote work. The law further permits employees to terminate their employment.
Proposed reforms in several states have drawn criticism. Nisha Varia, of Human Rights Watch, stated that "even the proposed reforms [in regards to legal reforms in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Lebanon] fall short of international standards and the comprehensive protections other countries are implementing."[30]
Grassroots organizations contribute to advocacy efforts on behalf of migrant domestic workers. Groups such as Migrant-Rights.org document reported abuses, promote public awareness, and support calls for policy reform.[31]
Per country
[edit]Bahrain
[edit]In 2009, Bahrain was the first country in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to repeal the kafala system. In a public statement, the Labour Minister likened the system to slavery.[7] Changes to the Labour Market Regulatory Law were made in April 2009 and implemented starting 1 August 2009. Under the new law, migrants are sponsored by the Labour Market Regulation Authority and can change from one employer to another without their employer's agreement. Three months' notice is required to quit from an employer.[32]
However, in November 2009 Human Rights Watch stated that "authorities do little to enforce compliance" with "employers who withhold wages and passports from migrant employees ... practices [which] are illegal under Bahraini law."[33]
Israel
[edit]For years through the year 2006, Israel effectively maintained a kafala system, which in Israel was called the "binding system".[4] As with the kafala system, migrant laborers in Israel were tied to a specific employer for the duration of their visas. Over the years when Israel maintained this system, passport confiscation and other abuses were systematic and effectively went unpunished.[34][35]
The Israeli Supreme Court struck down the Israeli version of the kafala system in a landmark March 2006 decision, Kav LaOved Worker's Hotline v. Government of Israel, with the Court citing human rights concerns.[35] While the 2006 decision removed the Israeli version of the kafala system in a formal sense, a 2014 study by Israeli labour scholars Adriana Kemp and Rebeca Raijman claimed that the binding system still applied to migrant domestic workers, though not to migrant workers in general.[4] Abuses of migrant non-domestic workers in Israel remained widespread as of 2015[update]; a 2015 study by Human Rights Watch found that almost all Thai migrant workers on kibbutzim in Israel lived in squalor, were denied regular days off, and were worked beyond, and paid below, legally mandated requirements.[36]
Kuwait
[edit]The kafala system is practiced in Kuwait. In 2018, Kuwait became involved in a diplomatic crisis with the Philippines, which ended in a May 2018 labor deal which prohibited common practices under the kafala against Filipino migrant workers, including the confiscation of passports and guaranteeing one day off a week from work.[37][38]
Lebanon
[edit]Oman
[edit]In Oman, the kafala system is regulated by the foreign residency law and accompanying laws, while the system is enforced by the Ministry of Manpower and the Royal Oman Police.[39][40][41][42][43] According to Oman's 2003 Labour Law, an employer needs a permit issued by the Ministry of Manpower in order to import foreign workers.[44] Furthermore, migrant workers are prohibited from working for another employer.[45] The Labour Law places responsibility for the migrant worker on the employer.[45][46] The 2003 Law also sets conditions for the labour contract, as well as the rights and obligations of both employers and migrant workers, including the provision of medical facilities, suitable means of transport, and a minimum wage by the Council of Ministers.[47][48][49][50] In addition, if a migrant worker wishes to change employers, the employee needs to receive a No Objection Certificate from the employer.[51]
In 2011, Oman reportedly informed the United Nations Human Rights Council that alternatives to the kafala system were being considered.[52] However, the sponsorship system still remains in place.[52] Legislative amendments to the Omani labour laws were under consideration in late 2016.[51][53] The Ministry of Manpower also announced in 2016 the abolition of the obligatory No Objection Certificate.[51][54]
Qatar
[edit]About 1.2 million foreign workers in Qatar, mostly from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and the Philippines, comprise 94 percent of the labour force. There are nearly five foreign workers for each Qatari citizen, mostly housemaids and low-skilled workers.[55]
Most of the workers live under conditions that Human Rights Watch has likened to forced labor.[8] Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, stated "In late 2010 we conducted a risk assessment looking at basic fundamental labor rights. The Gulf region stood out like a red light. They were absolutely at the bottom end for rights for workers. They were fundamentally slave states."[8] An exit visa system prevents workers from leaving the country without the sponsor's permission.[8]
Employer consent is required to change jobs, leave the country, get a driver's license, rent a home or open a chequing account. Amnesty International witnessed workers signing false statements that they had received their wages in order to have their passports returned.[56] The organization called for an overhaul of the 'sponsorship' system.[56] Arab-American businessman Nasser Beydoun described their situation as: "Foreign workers in Qatar are modern-day slaves to their local employers. The local Qatari owns you."[57]
International media attention increased after Qatar was named the host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.[8][58] In March 2022, FIFA President Gianni Infantino discussed workers' rights with the Qatar Minister of Labour Ali bin Samikh Al Marri.[59] In 2022, Law No. 18 of 2022 of Qatar's labour reforms mandated the removal of employer's permission to change jobs[clarification needed] and established a non-discriminatory minimum wage for all.[citation needed]
The kafala or sponsorship system practiced by GCC nations was stated as the main reason for abuse of the rights of low-income migrant workers.[60]
High-income professional expatriate workers are affected by the kafala system. A confounding issue is that many of the companies are based out of western states from the EU and the US.[61] The most typical form of abuse by these companies is refusing to release employees once their employment has ended with the company. This lack of release (typically through a No Objection Certificate or NOC) restricts employees from moving to another company in Qatar after employment has ended with the present employer.
This new law may get rid of the word 'sponsorship' but it leaves the same basic system intact. It is good that Qatar has accepted that its laws were fuelling abuse, but these inadequate changes will continue to leave workers at the mercy of exploitative bosses.
This prohibition executed by the company will keep the typical employee from working in Qatar for two years beyond the time their employment ended. In worse cases, the company holds the employee indefinitely in an effort to extort money from the employee when business opportunities fail. From the highest executives to the lowest secretaries, this policy is damaging and serves as a constant threat over the employee.[63]
On 13 December 2016, the Qatari government introduced a new labour law which it said would bring "tangible benefits" to workers in the country by abolishing the kafala system. Al Jazeera English stated that the new regulations "aimed at making it easier for migrant workers to change jobs and leave the country [and] came into effect" immediately.[64] Amnesty International characterized the reforms as inadequate and continuing to "leave migrant workers at the hands of exploitative bosses".[62]
In January 2020, Qatar issued a ministerial decree that abolished the exit visa requirement that was part of the kafala system. With the exit visa requirement removed, migrants working in Qatar no longer need to obtain employer permission to leave Qatar. The International Labour Organization described the decree as an "important milestone in the ... labour reform agenda". Human Rights Watch considered the change as insufficient, since the requirement for employer consent for changing jobs and discrimination in permanent minimum wage levels remained, and migrant workers "still [faced] arrest and deportation [for leaving] their employer without permission".[65]
In August 2020, the Qatari government announced a monthly minimum wage for all workers of 1,000 riyals (US$266), an increase from the previous temporary minimum wage of 750 riyals (US$200) a month. The No Objection Certificate was also removed so that employees can change jobs without consent of the current employer. A Minimum Wage Committee was also formed to check on the implementation.[66]
The issue of migrant workers' rights in Qatar attracted greater attention since the 2022 FIFA World Cup was awarded to Qatar,[68][69] with a 2013 investigation by The Guardian newspaper claiming that many workers were denied food and water, had their identity papers taken away from them, compelled to forced labor, and that they were not paid on time or at all, making some of them effectively slaves.[70] The Guardian estimated that,[70] by the time the competition would be held, without reforms of the kafala system, out of the 2 million-strong migrant workforce[71] up to 4,000 workers could die due to lax safety and other causes.[72] These claims were based upon the fact that 522 Nepalese[73] workers and over 700 Indian[70] workers had died since 2010, when Qatar's bid as World Cup's host had been won, about 250 Indian workers dying each year.[74] Given that there were half a million Indian workers in Qatar, the Indian government said that was quite a normal number of deaths.[74] In 2015, a crew of four journalists from the BBC were arrested and held for two days after they attempted to report on the condition of workers in the country.[75] The reporters had been invited to visit the country as guests of the Government of Qatar.[75] The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2015 the International Trade Union Confederation's claim that over 1,200 workers had died while working on infrastructure and real-estate projects related to the World Cup, and the Qatar Government's counter-claim that none had.[76] The BBC later reported that this often-cited figure of 1,200 workers having died in World Cup construction in Qatar between 2011 and 2013 is not correct, and that the 1,200 number is instead representing deaths from all Indians and Nepalese working in Qatar, not just of those workers involved in the preparation for the World Cup, and not just of construction workers.[74]
Most Qatari nationals avoid doing manual work or low-skilled jobs. They are given preference in the workplace.[77] Michael van Praag, president of the Royal Dutch Football Association, requested the FIFA Executive Committee to pressure Qatar over those allegations to ensure better workers' conditions. He also stated that a new vote on the attribution of the World Cup to Qatar would have to take place if the corruption allegations were to be proved.[78]
In March 2016, Amnesty International accused Qatar of using forced labour, forcing the employees to live in poor conditions, and withholding their wages and passports. It also accused FIFA of failing to stop the stadium from being built on human right abuses.[79] Migrant workers told Amnesty about verbal abuse and threats they received after complaining about not being paid for up to several months. Nepali workers were even denied leave to visit their family after the 2015 Nepal earthquake.[80]
In October 2017, the International Trade Union Confederation said that Qatar had signed an agreement to improve the situation of more than 2 million migrant workers in the country. According to the ITUC, the agreement provided for establishing substantial reforms in labour system, including ending the Kafala system. The ITUC also stated that the agreement would positively affect the general situation of workers, especially those who work on the 2022 FIFA World Cup infrastructure projects. The workers will no longer need their employer's permission to leave the country or change their jobs.[81] Amnesty International have questioned whether Qatar would complete the promised labour reforms before the start of the World Cup, a sentiment that FIFA backed. Amnesty International found that abuses were still occurring despite the nation taking some steps to improve labour rights.[82]
In May 2019, an investigation by the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper discovered some of the 28,000 workers on the stadiums are being paid 750 Qatari riyal per month, which is equivalent to £190 per month or 99 pence an hour for a typical 48-hour week.[1] Hendriks Graszoden, the turf supplier for the 2006 World Cup and for the European Championships in 2008 and 2016, refused to supply Qatar with World Cup turf. According to company spokesperson Gerdien Vloet, one reason for this decision was the accusations of human rights abuses.[83]
In April 2020, the government of Qatar provided $824 million to pay the wages of migrant workers in quarantine or undergoing treatment for COVID-19.[84][85] Later that year, the Qatari government announced a monthly minimum wage for all workers of 1,000 riyals (US$275), an increase from the previous temporary minimum wage of 750 riyals a month.[86][87] The new laws went into effect in March 2021.[88] The International Labour Organization said "Qatar is the first country in the region to introduce a non-discriminatory minimum wage, which is a part of a series of historical reforms of the country's labour laws",[89] while the campaign group Migrant Rights said the new minimum wage was too low to meet migrant workers' need with Qatar's high cost of living.[90]
Employers are obligated to pay 300 riyals for food and 500 riyals for accommodation, if they do not provide employees with these directly. The No Objection Certificate was removed so that employees can change jobs without consent of the current employer. A Minimum Wage Committee was also formed to check on the implementation.[91] These reforms removed the kafala system and a contractual system was introduced.[71][92]
An investigative report published by The Guardian used data from embassies and national foreign employment offices to estimate migrant worker death toll since World Cup was awarded to Qatar. Between 2010 and late 2020 over 6,500 migrant workers from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka have died in Qatar.[93] At the 2022 FIFA Congress in Doha, Lise Klaveness—head of the Norwegian Football Federation—criticised the organisation for having awarded the World Cup to Qatar, citing the various controversies surrounding the tournament. She argued that "in 2010 World Cups were awarded by FIFA in unacceptable ways with unacceptable consequences. Human rights, equality, democracy: the core interests of football were not in the starting XI until many years later. These basic rights were pressured onto the field as substitutes by outside voices. FIFA has addressed these issues but there's still a long way to go."[94][95] Hassan al-Thawadi, secretary general of Qatar 2022, criticised her remarks for ignoring the country's recent labour reforms.[95] The European Union's Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2021 noted Qatar's labour law reforms had incorporated non-discriminatory minimum wage systems and removal of the kafala system in 2021.[96]
In March 2022, FIFA president Gianni Infantino claimed in an interview that the Gulf nation is being progressive in terms of the labour rights and migrant rights issues that prevailed previously, adding "I am pleased to see the strong commitment from the Qatari authorities to ensure the reforms are fully implemented across the labour market, leaving a lasting legacy of the FIFA World Cup long after the event, and benefiting migrant workers in the host country in the long term."[97][98] Shortly before the tournament, France 24 broadcast a report titled "The plight of migrant workers in Qatar", adding more details to the controversy and how many reform laws have not been followed.[99]
On 20 October 2022, Amnesty International published an article in which it criticised the reforms done by Qatar for migrant workers and stated that these reforms are unfinished and compensation still owed as the World Cup looms, and also stated that although Qatar has made important strides on labour rights over the past five years, it is abundantly clear that there is a great distance still to go.[100] However the reforms have taken place in the run-up to Qatar's hosting of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, an event that has put the country in the spotlight. The Qatari government has always affirmed that the World Cup is not the finish line, the reforms will continue to implement even after the event is over.[101]
The government has strengthened its wage protection system and also added a new complaints platform that has increased access, and because the Wage Protection System (WPS) monitors payments electronically, most cases (84 percent in 2021–2022) decided in favour of workers. There has been an increase in the amount paid out to the Workers' Support and Insurance Fund between 2021 and 2022. A social dialogue structure was also established by the Qatari government in various enterprises. The MOL and the ILO have worked closely on the development of law and policy, systems, enhanced the capacity of inspectors and Communications campaigns, including measures to keep workers and workplaces safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.[101]
According to Human Rights Watch's 2026 World Report, despite Qatar's promises around the 2022 FIFA World Cup, workers in the country "continue to face widespread abuse under the country’s restrictive kafala system", and still "face wage theft, unexplained deaths, dangerous working conditions and continued exploitation after the tournament."[102]
Romania
[edit]Romania does not[when?] operate a fully legal kafala system. Some aspects of its labour migration framework for non-European Union (EU) workers can create vulnerabilities associated with employer-dependent migration systems.[103] Romania experienced[when?] a sharp increase in labour migration due to domestic labour shortages, leading authorities to recruit tens of thousands of workers from outside the EU, particularly from South Asia and Southeast Asia.[104]
Many of these workers originate from countries such as Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, and are typically employed in sectors including construction, logistics, hospitality, and delivery services.[105] Non-EU workers generally enter Romania through a system requiring a work permit tied to a specific employer, which can create a degree of dependency on that employer.[106]
Documented cases of exploitation involving migrant workers include misleading recruitment practices, unpaid wages, and poor living or working conditions.[107] Some workers reported being recruited under false promises and facing significantly different conditions upon arrival.[108]
Due to these factors, observers[who?] compared Romania's labour migration system to systems such as kafala, particularly regarding employer-linked permits and limited mobility in practice.[109] Romania's system remains[when?] legally distinct from kafala systems: employers do not have formal control over a worker's freedom of movement, and migrant workers retain legal rights and protections under Romanian and EU law, However most cases have been ignored and very rarely prosecuted due to Romania's severe workforce shortage mainly caused by millions of Romanians immigrating to Western European and North American countries, particularly Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States for better conditions.[110][111]
As of September 2025, more than 140,000 non-EU workers from Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, India and several other countries from South and Southeast Asia were legally working in Romania, with over 37,600 non-EU workers legally working in Bucharest alone. In 2023, the number of non-EU workers in the Bucharest–Ilfov area was nearly 56,000.[112]
Saudi Arabia
[edit]From 1991 to 2019, 300,000 Bangladeshi women went to Saudi Arabia under the kafala system.[113] In early November 2019, protests took place in Dhaka in response to the case of Sumi Akter, who claimed "merciless sexual assaults", being locked up for 15 days, and having her hands burnt by hot oil by her Saudi employers. The case of another Bangladeshi, Nazma Begum, who claimed being tortured, also attracted media attention. Both had been promised jobs as hospital cleaning staff but were tricked into becoming household servants. Begum died in Saudi Arabia of an untreated illness.[113]
According to a 2008 HRW report,[10] under the kafala system in Saudi Arabia, "an employer assumes responsibility for a hired migrant worker and must grant explicit permission before the worker can enter Saudi Arabia, transfer employment, or leave the country. The kafala system gives the employer immense control over the worker."[114] HRW stated that "some abusive employers exploit the kafala system and force domestic workers to continue working against their will and forbid them from returning to their countries of origin" and that this is "incompatible with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".