A new measure was announced on July 18, 2026, in Burundi's Mukaza commune, Bujumbura, during community and sanitation work. The initiative involves utilizing individuals arrested for offenses such as vagrancy, begging, unauthorized street vending, or public disorder for sanitation activities. Officials stated that the program aims to prevent idleness within detention cells. Detainees are expected to participate in "useful activities" like cleaning and sanitation work as part of this new approach, with the stated objective being to avoid idleness in detention cells and have detainees participate in useful activities like cleaning and sanitation. This announcement was made amidst ongoing community efforts, drawing immediate attention to the legal implications of such a policy.
Legal and Rights Objections
Jean-Marie Nshimirimana, legal representative of Ntabariza SPF, stated that while detainees condemned for minor offenses can perform general interest work, he opposes coercion for individuals in custody. Nshimirimana emphasized that provisional detainees benefit from the presumption of innocence and cannot be subjected to forced labor. He elaborated, "An accused remains legally innocent until convicted. They therefore cannot be subjected to forced labor." Nshimirimana added, "Imprisoning a person does not mean sinking them further, but allowing them to correct themselves." He also noted, "One must always verify whether the rights of the person are respected. Some detainees are prosecuted for minor offenses, while others may be convicted and transferred to central prisons." He further asserted that if detainees are expected to perform tasks, they must be properly fed and cared for. This condition, Nshimirimana indicated, is essential for any work requirement to be considered humane and lawful, ensuring the basic dignity and well-being of those involved.
Vianney Ndayisaba, coordinator of the Association for the Fight Against Unemployment and Torture (Aluchoto), asserted that the measure is contrary to law and human rights. Ndayisaba stated, "We demand that this measure be stopped, because it is contrary to laws and human rights." He argued that only detainees definitively convicted by a judicial decision can participate in general interest work under specific legal conditions. Ndayisaba further explained, "It is up to the justice system to determine whether a person is guilty or not. Administrative authorities cannot take measures based solely on their assessments; one must always verify whether the decision complies with the law." He showed that "Individuals detained in police stations and cells remain legally innocent until they have been convicted." The International Labour Organization's (ILO) Convention No. 29 defines forced labor as any work or service demanded under threat of penalty for which the individual has not offered themselves voluntarily. Alexis Manirakiza, a legal expert, explained that these exceptions generally do not apply to individuals simply arrested or in preventive detention if the work is imposed without legal basis and consent.
Advocacy Group Criticisms
The association Ntabariza SPF (Solidarity with prisoners and their families) has publicly contested the Mukaza commune's announcement regarding the use of detainees for sanitation work. Jean-Marie Nshimirimana, representing Ntabariza SPF, stated that if detainees are expected to perform tasks, they must be properly fed and cared for. This condition, Nshimirimana indicated, is essential for any work requirement to be considered humane and lawful. He further clarified that the rights of provisional detainees, who are presumed innocent, must be scrupulously respected, and any form of forced labor for this group is unacceptable under both national and international legal frameworks. Nshimirimana's concerns highlight the practical and ethical challenges of implementing such a policy without infringing upon fundamental human rights.
The Association for the Fight Against Unemployment and Torture (Aluchoto) has also demanded that the measure be stopped. Vianney Ndayisaba, the coordinator for Aluchoto, argued that the policy is contrary to established laws and human rights principles governing the treatment of individuals in custody. Aluchoto's position emphasizes that administrative authorities should not impose such measures without a judicial basis. Ndayisaba reiterated that only detainees definitively convicted by a judicial decision can participate in general interest work, and even then, under specific legal conditions that safeguard their rights. The organization stressed that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice and must be upheld for all individuals not yet convicted.
Aluchoto further recalled that the President of the Republic has previously mentioned the possibility of convicted individuals performing minor general interest works to serve their sentences. This past statement, according to Aluchoto, specifically refers to individuals definitively convicted by a judicial decision, not those in provisional detention or simply arrested. The organization maintains that this distinction is key, as it aligns with legal frameworks that differentiate between convicted persons and those presumed innocent. Aluchoto's call for the measure to be stopped shows the severity of their concerns regarding its legality and ethical implications, urging authorities to adhere strictly to judicial processes and human rights standards.
Expert Analysis and International Standards
Alexis Manirakiza, a jurist, stated that the measure raises serious legality questions under Burundian law and international human rights standards. Manirakiza asserted that the communal administrator lacks the power to impose such a measure or to create a sanction equivalent to a penalty. He explained that the communal administrator is responsible for commune administration, maintaining public order, and executing laws and regulations, according to Articles 41 and 48 of the 2024 communal law. However, Manirakiza added, "she does not have the power to create a sanction involving deprivation of liberty or to impose a penalty or a measure comparable to a penalty." He further clarified that "under the principle of legality, any restriction on rights and freedoms must be based on a clear legal basis." Manirakiza observed that "forcing people held in police custody or detained in a communal cell to carry out public interest work does not fall within the ordinary competencies of an administrative authority." This indicates a clear overreach of administrative power into judicial territory.
Manirakiza cited Article 53 of the Burundian Penal Code of 2017, which stipulates that general interest work is a principal penalty pronounced by a judge. Obligating individuals to perform public interest work before any judicial decision "amounts to treating the persons concerned as if their guilt had already been established," Manirakiza stated, describing this as "a direct challenge to the presumption of innocence." He added, "An arrested person is not guilty. They can be released without prosecution, acquitted, or convicted." Furthermore, Manirakiza warned that "making detained persons leave to perform cleaning work under duress can be interpreted as an infringement of their dignity." This infringement, he elaborated, extends beyond just the physical act of labor, touching upon the psychological and social well-being of individuals who are still awaiting due process. The jurist emphasized that the legal framework for penalties is clearly defined and cannot be circumvented by administrative directives.
Burundi has been a party to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 29 on forced labor since 1963. Manirakiza noted that exceptions to forced labor include work executed as a consequence of a judicial conviction under public authority control, such as general interest work. However, he clarified that "these exceptions generally do not apply to persons simply arrested or placed in police custody or in preventive detention; if the work is imposed without a legal basis and without consent, it can indeed present the characteristics of forced labor under international law." The ILO Convention No. 29 defines forced labor as any work or service demanded under threat of penalty for which the individual has not offered themselves voluntarily. Manirakiza's analysis shows that the Mukaza commune's measure appears to directly contradict these international obligations, potentially exposing Burundi to scrutiny regarding its adherence to international human rights and labor standards. The distinction between a judicially imposed penalty and an administratively coerced task is critical in defining forced labor under international law.
