Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Sudan (Ratification: 1970)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that sections 50, 66 and 69 of the Criminal Act provided for penalties of imprisonment (which involves compulsory labour by virtue of section 52 of the Prisons Act, 2003) for acts which may have a bearing on the application of the Convention. These include committing an act with the intention of undermining the constitutional system, for the publication of false news with the intention of harming the prestige of the State, and for committing an act intended to disturb public peace and tranquillity.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no information on this point in its report. The Committee observes, from the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation of human rights of the Sudan of January 2025, that since the outbreak of conflict in April 2023, the shrinking of civic space in the Sudan was marked by the arbitrary arrest and detention of civil society actors, often based on the individuals’ work or opinions. In May 2024, for instance, the East Gedaref criminal court sentenced a man to two years of imprisonment for a Facebook post recalling the values of the 2019 revolution. In addition, the OHCHR monitored the increasing trend of trials and convictions of civilians accused of collaboration with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the states under the control of the Sudanese Armed Forces. In the reporting period, at least 31 persons were sentenced to imprisonment, including two girls, with sentences handed down by courts in Gedaref and Kassala, and in Ad-Damazin, Atbara and Port Sudan, ranging from five years to life imprisonment. These sentences were issued in most cases following extremely speedy trials, with common charges including undermining the constitutional order, as set out in section 50 of the Criminal Act of 1991. Moreover, OHCHR reports on the prosecution of at least 89 anti-war opinion holders and political dissenters, issued in three separate arrest warrants, on 3 and 4 April 2024, which were based on a common standard list of charges, including that of undermining the constitutional order (A/HRC/58/29). A 2025 country report from the OHCHR (issued by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan) on the Human Rights Situation in the Sudan, covering the period 1 January to 30 June 2025, also states that Sudanese courts, particularly criminal and anti-terrorism courts, handed down over 70 long-term custodial sentences, including life imprisonment, predominantly for alleged collaboration with the RSF, with charges largely drawn from the Sudanese Criminal Act (including section 50). The reports received by OHCHR also raise concerns regarding the disproportionate prosecution and sentencing of individuals originating from the Kordofan and Darfur regions, particularly on allegations of affiliation with the RSF, and convictions included those related to “spreading false information”.

The Committee expresses its deep concern in respect of the above information and recalls that restrictions on fundamental rights and liberties, including freedom of expression, have a bearing on the application of the Convention, if such measures are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, as is the case in Sudan, where persons convicted to a penalty of imprisonment are compelled to perform labour.

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. To this end, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring the provisions of Criminal Act of 1991 into conformity with the Convention, by either restricting the scope of application of sections 50, 66 and 69 of the Criminal Act to situations of violence, or by removing sanctions involving compulsory prison labour. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the specific penalties that have been imposed on persons under sections 50, 66 and 69 of the Criminal Act.

Cybercrime Law. The Committee observes that, under sections 24 and 26 of the Cybercrime Law of 2018, the punishment for anyone who prepares or uses any information or communication network to spread news or rumours or reports, knowing they are false, intending to cause panic to the public or diminish the prestige of the State; or to direct abuse or insults towards any person that does not amount to slander or defamation, can include imprisonment. Under section 25 of the Law, anyone who prepares or uses information or communication networks to damage the reputation of a person can also be liable to imprisonment.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention protects those who express their views or oppose the established political, social or economic system and that the expression of such views can take place orally or through the press or other type of publications or communication media, including social media platforms. Moreover, the Committee recalls that the excessive use of defamation provisions may restrict the exercise of freedom of expression, particularly by journalists and human rights defenders. The Committee emphasizes the importance of amending the defamation provisions, so that they do not constitute penal offences punishable with sanctions involving compulsory labour.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to review section 25 of the Cybercrime Law to ensure that this provision on defamation does not constitute a penal offence that can be punished with imprisonment. In addition, in order to assess the compatibility of sections 24 and 26 of the Cybercrime Law with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, including information on the number and nature of cases examined before the courts, the convictions and the facts that led to these convictions, and the penalties applied.

The Committee is raising another matter in a request addressed directly to the Government.