Kuwait Reinstates Exit Permit, Tightening the Grip of Kafala

The reinstatement of exit permits—an authorization that migrant workers must obtain from their employer or the state to leave the country— marks the latest regression of migrant labour reforms in Kuwait. 

After decades without the requirement, Kuwait reintroduced exit permits on 1 July 2025 under a ministerial circular - Opens in new tab issued by Interior Minister Sheikh Fahad Al-Yousef. As of that date, all private-sector migrant workers (known locally as Visa 18 workers) must obtain an exit permit from their employer to leave the country. The circular assigns the Public Authority for Manpower (PAM) to be in charge of the Exit Permit regulations. 

Expanding Employer Control 

According - Opens in new tab to PAM, the exit permit is intended to regulate the departure process of migrant workers, ensure compliance with legal requirements, and “reduce violations associated with leaving the country without prior notice.” Supporters of the policy also argue that it aims to prevent migrant workers from absconding with money or leaving the country without settling their financial obligations in Kuwait. However, these arguments do not hold up to scrutiny, as no data or evidence suggests that this issue is widespread. Moreover, they overlook the fact that mechanisms already exist to restrict exit through the court system for individuals who have committed criminal or administrative offences, or who have outstanding financial dues such as unpaid traffic fines - Opens in new tab or electricity bills - Opens in new tab. According - Opens in new tab to local media reports, the Ministry of Justice issued approximately 4,000 travel ban orders against both citizens and migrants in the first seven months of 2025. 
In its statement on the new policy, PAM claimed - Opens in new tab that the measure seeks to ensure “a balance between the rights of workers and employers." Given that the new arrangement grants employers the authority to decide whether their workers may leave the country, the policy appears primarily aimed at consolidating even more power for employers over migrant workers, power that is already heavily skewed in their favour under the Kafala system. 
Local media reporting indicates that employers have generally welcomed - Opens in new tab the exit permit's reinstatement, arguing that it protects businesses from potential abuse by workers. One report - Opens in new tab included misleading testimony from a manager at a mid-sized private company, who claimed that some workers leave for better-paying jobs or take money with them, and adding that “one accounts clerk disappeared overnight with company funds.” Such anxieties, however, are largely misplaced, as employers already have mechanisms to restrict workers’ mobility, including filing absconding or theft cases that result in travel bans.  
Additionally, confiscation of migrant workers' passports - Opens in new tab remains a widespread practice that is illegal but persists, with employers often citing the same justification as the exit permit system for doing so. The manager quoted above added that, despite the new exit permit requirements, his firm continues to hold the passports of employees handling finances, adding: “Three days before an employee leaves, we issue the passport, audit the accounts, and only then allow travel. For us, this system closes loopholes.” 

In response to the 2017 proposal by Kuwaiti MPs to reintroduce the exit permit system through a labour law amendment, Kuwait’s Chamber of Commerce – the main entity representing Kuwaiti employers and business leaders – expressed support for the measure, arguing that it protects employers’ rights. However, the Chamber recommended that instead of enacting the policy via legislation, exit permits should be implemented through an executive mechanism coordinated by a working group consisting of officials from the PAM, the Chamber of Commerce, and Kuwait’s Trade Union Federation. According to the Chamber, this approach would allow for easier amendment and adjustment than if the policy were codified in the labour or immigration law, while also avoiding potential damage to Kuwait’s reputation before international human rights organizations. The Chamber of Commerce’s emphasis on the risks to Kuwait’s reputation underscores its recognition that the exit permit system undermines fundamental human rights.

The proposal to adopt a procedure that harms workers while protecting Kuwait’s reputation reveals the underlying intent of many labour migration reforms in the GCC. Still, states are often rewarded for these performances. For example, Kuwait’s Trafficking in Persons (TIP) ranking was upgraded to Tier-2 this year, and Bahrain has retained its Tier-1, despite substantial evidence of ongoing abuse. 

To a large degree, the recommendation not to codify the exit permit requirement in the labour or immigration law did materialize. While neither law was amended, the policy was instead enacted through a Ministry of Interior circular directing PAM to employ the “necessary mechanisms and procedures” to implement the exit permit system. Meanwhile, the viewpoints and concerns of migrant workers, who are most directly affected by the policy, were not taken into consideration. They were merely bystanders to a process that ultimately granted employers greater power to determine whether and when workers may leave the country. 

Legal Ambiguity 

Workers have already reported problems with the permit system, often taking to social media to voice complaints about both the policy itself and its implementation.  

Firstly, the exit permit system lacks a clear legal framework. It was introduced through an executive directive by the Interior Ministry, rather than a legislative amendment, and its provisions are known only through public statements issued by PAM. The circular implementing the exit permit decision contains only three articles, none of which address procedures for workers or potential consequences for employers who deliberately obstruct a worker’s exit.
On this latter point, a public statement by PAM stated that “in the event of an employer's arbitrariness, deliberate obstruction, or refusal to grant an employee leave permission, the employee can refer to the relevant labour relations unit based on their company's file to file a complaint in accordance with established legal procedures.” However, the statement does not clarify what the “established legal procedures” are, whether any penalties would be imposed on the employer, whether the employer could lose the authority to decide a worker’s exit if they have abused this power. Kuwaiti authorities have also not provided information or conducted awareness campaigns to inform migrant workers of their rights or the procedures available to them if an employer unjustly refuses to grant an exit permit.  

It is also unclear how long the process of resolving disputes will take, which is particularly problematic if a worker must travel for an emergency. As with other dispute resolution procedures, such as attempts to resolve issues amicably in cases of non-payment or other conflicts, employers can easily obstruct or delay access to justice. For example, some employers deliberately ignore PAM's calls during dispute hearings to obstruct access to justice. This process is especially troublesome for low-income workers, who often lack the support and resources needed to navigate the system, including time, the ability to travel to the relevant PAM offices, language skills, and knowledge to assert their case, particularly if they do not have external assistance.

Furthermore, workers who file complaints against their employers for failing to issue exit permits risk retaliation, including mistreatment, termination, not receiving their end-of-service benefits and/or dues wages, or cancellation of their work permits, and have little power to challenge these actions.  

Accessibility issues 

The rollout of the exit permit system did not proceed smoothly, as reports - Opens in new tab indicated that approximately 30,000 teachers in Kuwait encountered difficulties obtaining exit permits due to data synchronization issues following a digital upgrade of the Civil Service Bureau’s systems. 

Additionally, the primary channel for applying for an exit permit, the Sahel app, requires a smartphone and is only available in English and Arabic, making it inaccessible to many migrant workers who are not literate in either language, particularly those in low-income occupations. Furthermore, many employment contracts in Kuwait illegally stipulate that workers must compensate their employers for breaching contract terms, such as resigning before the contract period ends. In the past, employers often used passport confiscation as a means of control; however, workers could still technically obtain an outpass (temporary travel document) from their embassies and leave the country. With the reintroduction of the exit permit requirement, employers now possess yet another tool to coerce and restrict workers’ movement. 

The exit permit requirement will also render migrant workers under the so-called “free-visa” arrangements even more vulnerable. In this irregular arrangement, migrants purchase a work permit through a local sponsor without actually working for them. Given that this arrangement is considered illegal and can lead to arrest and deportation, sponsors can misuse their position by coercing workers to pay money in exchange for issuing an exit permit, leaving them at risk of exploitation and unable to leave the country. Moreover, free-visa workers have limited avenues for redress through local authorities. Local media have reported - Opens in new tab that sponsors have demanded around KD 50(US$170) to issue an exit permit to these workers.

Migrants have widely shared these concerns on social media. One user warned that the policy could become disastrous in cases of emergency travel if employers fail to respond in time. Another cautioned that “HR managers may also misuse this to exploit or demand favours from employees.” Others reported glitches with the Sahel app that prevented them from downloading the permit even after their employer had granted consent. Many expressed frustration about the exit permit procedures, arguing that the permit's seven-day validity allows little room for flexibility.

In Violation of International Standards 

In recent weeks, local media and Kuwaiti officials have celebrated Kuwait’s upgrade in the U.S. State Department’s 2025 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report from the Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 2. The Minister of Justice, Nasser Al-Sumait, stated - Opens in new tab that the upgrade reflects Kuwait’s “remarkable improvement” in performance and compliance with international standards. While Kuwait has introduced some reforms over the past year, including a new immigration law, these measures have not addressed the deeply unequal structure of the temporary labour migration system, which continues to leave migrant workers vulnerable to exploitation and forced labour. 

However, the Justice Minister’s statement stands in stark contrast to the realities imposed by the reintroduction of the exit permit, a measure that not only renders migrant workers more vulnerable to exploitation, but also clearly contravenes international human rights law and standards. The right of every person to leave any country, including their own, is enshrined in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which Kuwait has ratified. The exit permit requirement directly violates these provisions and discriminates against migrant residents. 

Given that only a few months have passed since the implementation of the exit permit, the full repercussions of this decision are yet to become clear. In the coming months, it is likely that the Kuwaiti state will attempt to strike a balance between serving employers’ interests, protecting its international reputation before critical human rights bodies, and pursuing its ambitions to attract “skilled” migrants and transform the country into a regional financial and trade hub under Vision 2035 - Opens in new tab. 

Ultimately, the fact that this decision was made without consulting, or even considering, the majority of residents who will be most affected reflects the deeply undemocratic nature of policymaking in Kuwait and the exclusionary logic of the Kafala system. It also underscores how easily progressive reforms can be reversed. Similar backtracking has been observed elsewhere in the Gulf: in 2009, Bahrain introduced reforms allowing migrant workers to change jobs without employer consent after a notice period, only to reverse the measure in 2011 by requiring workers to remain with their employer for at least one year before transferring sponsorship. Likewise, in 2024, Qatar’s Shura Council proposed reintroducing exit permits for domestic workers. 

Kuwait should not only reverse the exit permit requirement but also move toward the full abolition of the Kafala system. The executive nature of the exit permit’s implementation makes its repeal administratively straightforward. Moreover, the system, likely imposes additional costs on the state by burdening its bureaucracy, offering even more incentive to repeal it.