Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021.

My Lords, the instrument before us was laid on the 13 December 2021 under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which is also known as the sanctions Act. It revokes and replaces the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to remove one of the purposes of that regime and its corresponding designation criterion.

After reviewing the Burundi sanctions regime in the annual review in accordance with our statutory obligations under Section 30 of the sanctions Act, the Minister decided that the 2019 Burundi regulations were no longer appropriate for all their purposes. The purpose in Regulation 4(b) of the 2019 Burundi regulations encouraged the Government of Burundi to

“participate in negotiations with its political opponents in good faith to bring about a peaceful solution to the political situation in Burundi”.

Following elections in Burundi in May 2020, there was a managed and broadly peaceful transfer of power to a new president and, although political tensions remain, there is no longer an immediate political crisis. As such, my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Sanctions Minister, decided to revoke and replace the 2019 regulations to remove the purpose in Regulation 4(b) and its corresponding designation criterion, Regulation 6(2)(a)(ii).

Apart from this, the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 maintain the same effects as the 2019 Burundi regulations. Noble Lords should note that there are currently no designations under this regime.

In response to the improved political climate in Burundi, we decided not to transition the specific individual designations under the EU sanctions regime to the UK’s autonomous Burundi sanctions regime at the end of the transition period. We have seen more positive developments in Burundi since that time, and we warmly welcome the Government of Burundi’s closer co-operation with the international community over the past year. We also note, for example, that the Government have re-engaged with some media outlets. We welcome this increased commitment to human rights.

While these are encouraging steps towards peace and stability in Burundi, the UK Government still want to see further progress over a sustained period. We remain concerned by reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and other critical voices, and we are concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi, and ongoing impunity for those who have violated or abused human rights or are currently doing so. Breaches of human rights and impunity for perpetrators sully and compromise the gains made towards long-term stability in Burundi.

The purposes of the sanctions regime now are to encourage the Government of Burundi to respect democratic principles and institutions, the rule of law and good governance in Burundi; to refrain from policies or activities which repress civil society in Burundi; and to comply with international human rights law and respect human rights. Maintaining the regime, even without designations, underlines the seriousness of our desire to see that progress. It also allows us to designate persons for sanctions swiftly should the need arise.

Finally, I draw the attention of the Committee to an error that was identified in one of the purposes of the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021, after laying them in Parliament on 13 December 2021. The error is the inadvertent omission of the word “including” from the language of part of the purposes in Regulation 4(c)(ii). This provides that the purposes of the regulations contained in this instrument are to encourage the Government of Burundi to comply with international human rights law and to respect human rights including, in particular, the right of persons not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Burundi, in the context of rape, other forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence.

The intention had been to refer to the right of persons not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Burundi, including in the context of rape, other forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence. The word “including” was omitted. However, this omission does not make a substantive difference, as the purposes are clear and they encourage the Government of Burundi to comply with all international human rights law and human rights, not just in the context of sexual or gender-based violence. That Regulation 4(c)(ii), which is missing the word “including”, is an example within a wider definition. The intention is, nevertheless, to correct the error as soon as a suitable opportunity to amend the regulations arises. I welcome this opportunity to hear the views of noble Lords on these regulations and I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to make some comments—I should probably explain why a bishop is doing so. I have been a regular visitor to Burundi since 2000. I have made a number of visits, which have largely been to church leaders, but one occasion included meeting President Nkurunziza when he was in power. I have therefore experienced the deep poverty of Burundi first hand—and it is very deep. It is one of the five poorest nations on earth. My visits are not confined to staying in the capital city—it was Bujumbura but is now Gitega—but include going out meeting ordinary people in villages around the nation.

I fully understand why sanctions were placed and I am not opposing them being continued. I am pleased to see the changes being made. However, I note the significant impact that these sanctions can inadvertently have on the poorest in the nations and their unintended impact on civil leaders, such as church leaders and others, who feel slightly constrained in what they are able to see and do. I am concerned that, in speaking up for their nation, they might be thought to support things that we may not wish them to support.

In agreeing that these should go forward, I hope that the Government will keep them under regular review, so that they can be lifted as soon as possible, because there is no doubt that the new regime is behaving very differently from its predecessor. Yes, there are more moves that could be made around human rights. However, it is definitely going in the right direction and I think that the more encouragement it can be given by recognising and accepting that—this is one small step in that direction—the more it will help the leadership to serve the nation to the very best.

I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will recognise the important place of the church and other civil society in the life of Burundi and encourage them through other means. Ongoing support through overseas aid and so on is significantly important and is often best delivered by organisations such as Christian Aid and Tearfund and through the local churches—obviously, my particular connection is with the Anglican Church, but other churches as well. It is very rare that I get a chance to speak up for the wonderful nation of Burundi and its people. This is an opportunity, so I hope the Minister will address the questions that I have raised.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I have not had the pleasure of going to Burundi, but I have had a lot of experience in sub-Saharan Africa. I want to go rather farther than the right reverend Prelate; in fact, I want to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench what the purpose of these sanctions is. They have been in existence since 2015—I think I am right in saying that, because of course there were European Union sanctions dated 2015—and it seems to me that these sanctions are a carryover from our membership of the European Union.

When we think about Burundi, with its 12 million people and its poverty—it is way, way down the list of states; there is abject poverty in much of Burundi—it does not seem very relevant that the United Kingdom’s policy towards it should be, as it were, led by sanctions. Can the Minister say whether we have actually designated anybody under these sanctions in the past? This seems an automatic reaction to what has happened in the past.

If we think about sub-Saharan Africa, with all its problems, and relate them to Burundi, the central issue is economic development and not the behaviour of any particular Government at any particular time. Burundi has a very difficult past. There was the arrangement in 1884, whereby it became German. Following the First World War League of Nations agreement, it effectively became Belgian. Then, after the Second World War, there was the amalgamation—or attempt to amalgamate—with Rwanda. Frankly, none of these arrangements was in any way successful from the point of view of the people of Burundi. They were complicated by the fact that the settlement at the end of the First World War was of course all part of the settlement about Tanganyika, which up until then had been German. If we think about what has happened in what is now Tanzania, and relate that to Burundi, all I can say is that the contrast is extreme.

While going through this 50-page document and thinking to myself, “What is our Government’s policy towards Burundi?”, I came to the conclusion that this sanctions regime is basically irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the interest of our Government in what happens in sub-Saharan Africa and Burundi. I end by saying that the fertility rate in Burundi at the moment is 5.1, which means that its population doubles every 30 years or so. At the moment, the lifestyle and well-being of the Burundian people is not improving and, as far as I can see, the only active interest this country is taking in Burundi is that taken by the Church—well done the Church. I hope that when my noble friend replies, he will forgive me and widen his reply somewhat from the narrow purposes of this regulation. If he does not feel that it is the right time to do that, I should be very grateful for a letter on the subject of HMG’s policy towards Burundi.

My Lords, I speak for the Liberal Democrat Benches to express considerable concern about the decision to remove people from being designated under the sanctions regime in relation to Burundi, even if, in principle, the sanctions regime potentially stays in place.

It was of course when we were in the EU that the UK played a part in widening the sanctions regime which was then applied by all EU members. We maximised our impact by doing this; as the noble Lord will surely agree, sanctions are most effective when a number of countries group together to impose them. We carried over most of the sanctions that had been set in place in the EU into UK law, then later introducing the Magnitsky sanctions, which we had already been taking forward in the EU, as a tribute to both the Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and of course Bill Browder, who campaigned tirelessly for them to be introduced. These focus on individuals who are abusing human rights. There are many instances where such sanctions are surely justified, and they were applied in relation to Burundi, including by the EU.

Our sanctions regime clearly needs to be responsive. The Government are arguing that the transition of power in Burundi, despite human rights abuses, justifies the removal of certain designations. They make the point that there has a been a transition of power, that the immediate political crisis has resolved and that therefore sanctions should be removed. I note that the Government say that they remain concerned by reports of human rights violations in Burundi. The Minister has just repeated the words of the Minister in the other place, who stated that:

“We are concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi, and the ongoing impunity of those who have violated or abused human rights in Burundi and of those who do so now.”

He went on to say—the noble Lord has said the same—that:

“The purposes of the sanctions regime now are to encourage the Government of Burundi: first, to respect democratic principles and institutions, the rule of law and good governance in Burundi; secondly, to refrain from policies or activities that repress civil society in Burundi; and, thirdly, to comply with international human rights law and respect human rights.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/1/22; col. 4.]

However, this is maintaining the regime without designating anyone under it—that seems totally ineffectual.

I hear what the Minister says about being able to act quickly if they do decide to designate someone, so could he spell out clearly what he sees as the human rights situation in Burundi? Could he say why the Government have not designated anyone? Why have they not rolled over cases, particularly where these individuals have been accused of human rights abuses in the past, yet will see that they are no longer under threat from sanctions? This is a country where there were serious human rights abuses before the transition of power. Despite the fact that this transition took place, that the new president said encouraging things and that some journalists, for example, were released, real change is not being delivered.

The UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, which was established in 2016 but continues to report, has noted major concerns and urged people to look below the surface in Burundi, with its chair stating that

“not only have grave human rights violations continued to occur, but in some respects the situation has deteriorated.”

In 2020, the commission reported continued arbitrary detentions, torture and executions. It concluded in September 2021 that no structural reform had taken place and that, in fact, the rule of law continued to be “progressively eroded.” Crackdowns on civil society and the opposition continued, including summary executions, arbitrary arrests, killings and disappearances. Human Rights Watch has also borne that out.

Why are we taking the line that we are? Might it be that we are more isolated than when we were in the EU and need the support of countries at the UN? Precisely why is now the right time to remove sanctions designations on individuals? Can the Minister tell us whether the new Foreign Secretary has signed up to the sanctions regime in the way that her predecessor did? Can he also tell me how many staff worked in the sanctions unit at the end of 2020, how many are there now and what is their budget? A strong feeling is emerging that we are underresourcing this important department.

Are we in lockstep with the EU over this change, because it makes a difference to be working with other countries? In February 2021, the EU resumed dialogue with Burundi—I hope that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, were reassured by that—and said that it would resume financial support, but only if reforms were implemented. The EU was reported as considering lifting sanctions. They were reviewed by the EU in October, and its sanctions expire next year. What action is the EU taking, and are we in lockstep with it?

More widely, are we discussing with EU allies what other countries might also need sanctions? I do not need countries or individuals to be specified—the Minister will not tell me—all I want to know is: are we talking to the EU about this? It is better to act together. In addition, I should like full details of which sanctions the EU has which we have not taken into UK law and whether there are any that we have put in place that the EU does not have. I do not expect him to be able to tell me that now, but I should like him to write to me with full details of precisely what has not been taken into UK law from the EU sanctions regime of which we were part.

In conclusion, this SI concerns us, although I hear what the right reverend Prelate and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, say about trying to address poverty and making sure that we do not target the poorest. It feels that we, perhaps like Burundi, may be going backwards on those individual designations. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

My Lords, I, too, recognise the genuine concerns of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Burundi is an incredibly poor country; I even read that the subsistence economy has contracted by 25% through soil erosion and population, so even the poorest of the poor are getting poorer, which is clearly a huge problem.

However, I want to reflect some of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, because, although we will not oppose these largely technical regulations in relation to sanctions, we have strong concerns about their limitations. On Monday in the other place, Chris Heaton-Harris, the Europe Minister, said:

“Maintaining the regime that we have encourages the Government of Burundi to build on the recent positive political developments.”

That was reflected by the Minister this afternoon. The Europe Minister continued:

“It also underlines the seriousness of our desire to see further progress. It allows us the flexibility to designate, should we see fit and should the evidence suggest that is what we need to do. It also allows us to designate swiftly if the need arises. ”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/1/22; cols. 6-7.]

That addresses the point made by the right reverend Prelate that these measures are about targeting sanctions, not harming the poorest of the poor in Burundi.

However, whatever the initial optimism, President Ndayishimiye has not marked any meaningful shift in human rights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi reported in September that arbitrary detention, execution, torture and intimidation have continued despite the regime change. The decrease in political violence, while welcome, should not detract from those ongoing violations. They are incredibly serious. Does the Minister acknowledge and share the concerns of the UN commission of inquiry?

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised the rollback of sanctions and how the Government plan to encourage Burundi to change course and respect human rights. Can the Minister advise us why there are no designations and rollovers of individuals? What assessments were carried out on individuals who had previously been designated? He will be aware that the rollback of designations reflects similar actions by the US and EU.

I reiterate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Precisely how have we engaged with US and EU counterparts on this decision? The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, constantly reiterates the point that sanctions are effective only if we act in concert. So if we are changing policy, how did this happen? Was it in concert with others? What consultation took place? These are important questions to which we need answers.

It has been said in recent reports, particularly press reports, that cuts to the FCDO may be constraining the capacity of Ministers to sanction individuals and groups. I hope that the Minister can tell us that that is not the case in the lack of designations applicable to people in Burundi.

To conclude, while the Opposition will not oppose these regulations on the grounds that doing so would hamper efforts to introduce future designations, we are concerned that the Government are not properly holding the Burundi Government to account. As I said, the reduction in political violence is welcome but we cannot ignore the continued violations of basic human rights. I hope that the Minister, in reflecting on the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will tell us in concrete terms how we will work with our allies to encourage the Burundi Government to change course.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s insightful and timely discussion. I will try to address the questions raised in order. In particular, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for sharing his personal experiences and commend the Church’s work, of which I am obviously aware, not just in Burundi but across Africa.

In essence, this debate has been about why we have not removed the sanctions and why we have not gone slightly further. I will try to answer those points in order. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked why we have not removed Burundi sanctions. I take the point from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about unintended consequences, which is a good point and was very well made. The UK remains concerned by reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and other critical voices. We are also concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi. Breaches of human rights, coupled with impunity for perpetrators, compromise gains made towards long-term stability—in all countries.

I was asked what we think about human rights in Burundi. The Government recognise that the Government of Burundi have taken some steps which demonstrate greater commitment to human rights, including some prisoner releases, engagement with some media outlets and so on. However, we remain concerned by reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and other critical voices, as I said. We are also concerned about the situation of human rights defenders. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was correct to say that no one is currently designated.

Why have we decided to replace the Burundi regime? As I said in my opening speech, the review of the Burundi regulations in 2019 concluded that not all of the regime’s purposes were appropriate. The UK Government acted quickly on 13 December 2021 to revoke and re-lay the regime with the purpose in the previous regulation 4(b) removed. The UK Government revoked and replaced the UK’s autonomous Burundi sanctions regime to reflect the current situation in Burundi by, as I said in my opening remarks, removing the purpose relating to bringing about a peaceful solution to the political situation. Again, as I said earlier, following elections in Burundi in May 2020, there was a managed and broadly peaceful transfer of power to a new president, so they have gone quite a long way to fulfilling their original obligations. Maintaining the regime encourages the Government of Burundi to build on the recent positive developments that I have just described and underlines the seriousness of our desire to see further progress. It also allows us to designate persons swiftly if the need arises.

I have probably dealt with the questions on human rights, but will expand a little on why Burundi is no longer a human rights priority country. As I have said, the human rights situation remains concerning for the UK, but we recognise the positive steps and progress under the new president’s leadership. Obviously, we want to see that progress continue.

On ongoing engagement in-country with Burundi, we have a small diplomatic presence through the British Embassy Liaison Office—I will not attempt to pronounce the name of the capital—through which we continue to work with the international community resident to advocate for improved human rights there. The UK also engages through international fora such as the UN Human Rights Council. We continue to call on the Government to co-operate with all UN human rights mechanisms, including the new special rapporteur, and to enable the reopening of the OHCHR office in Burundi. The UK Government have also provided support to a range of local human rights and media freedom players, as well as the National Independent Human Rights Commission.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the budget and staffing of the sanctions unit, but I am afraid I will have to write on that as I do not have the details—that probably does not surprise her.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness asked about our international co-operation and co-ordination, in particular what we are doing to co-ordinate our sanctions with the EU. The UK and the EU are pursuing independent sanctions policies driven by our respective foreign policies, although I take note of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about how sanctions regimes are more effective if they are multilateral. The UK will continue to work with the EU and other international partners to tackle shared global challenges; we do that through good diplomatic practice. We are continuing to seek opportunities for international co-operation on sanctions, including with the EU and close allies such as the US, Canada and Australia, and have imposed sanctions in co-ordination with allies on a number of occasions in different parts of the world.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also asked about removing the designations. To expand a little on the EU designations that have been removed, there were four of them after the EU exit, because the political situation had improved, as I tried to explain earlier. In some cases, our legal tests for designations actually have a higher threshold than those of the EU.

On the international situation, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the UN’s concerns. Of course, we share them, but we note that there has been some progress. I reiterate the point that we want to see Burundi engage fully with the UN human rights mechanisms and allow the special rapporteur into the country.

I will study Hansard carefully and, if I have missed any specific questions, I commit to write.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I asked about the interaction with our continued overseas aid. I recognise that he will not have the answer, but I would be grateful if he could write.

I happily commit to write on that and apologise that I do not have the answer.

As I set out in my opening speech, the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 maintain essentially the same effects as the previous regime. The UK Government are pleased to work with the Government of Burundi on priority issues, which obviously include human rights. We continue to call on the Government of Burundi to co-operate with all UN human rights mechanisms and, as I have just mentioned, to facilitate the reopening of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Burundi. With that, I commit to write if I have missed anything and thank noble Lords for their participation today. I commend these regulations to the Committee.