Government urged to end its delay on debtor imprisonment alternatives

More than a year after the practical implementation of the amendments to the Execution Law regarding not imprisoning debtors, the flaw has become clear: the failure to find genuine, effective alternatives that safeguard creditors’ rights and preserve the stability of commercial dealings. The issue is no longer merely a legal debate over imprisonment but has become a test of the government’s ability to manage legislative reform in a balanced way, one that preserves a debtor’s dignity while also protecting the financial rights of the private sector and citizens.

The state committed to amending the law in response to human rights requirements and international standards, a direction that should be respected, but reform isn’t complete simply by changing the legal text. Governmental responsibility requires that these amendments be accompanied by an alternative system that gives creditors effective means to collect what’s owed them, and prevents debtor protection from turning into a permanent source of anxiety for anyone selling, financing, or providing a service based on trust and commitment to repayment.

Since the amendments were passed in 2022, government pledges to find suitable alternatives have been repeated, yet the passage of this period without reaching comprehensive solutions raises a legitimate question about the seriousness of implementation and the speed of response to economic sectors’ demands. It isn’t acceptable for promises to remain standing while merchants and business owners face growing challenges in collecting their money, without sufficient legal and enforcement tools.

The continuation of this legislative and enforcement vacuum could leave repercussions extending beyond individual cases, affecting the volume of trade transactions, deferred sales, investor confidence, and small and medium enterprises’ ability to manage liquidity. When guarantees for collecting rights weaken, some dealers may resort to tightening their commercial terms or reducing credit, which is reflected in economic activity as a whole.

What’s needed from the government today is to bear its responsibility and place the file of alternatives to debtor imprisonment among its urgent priorities. After more than a year of practical implementation, the delay is no longer justifiable, and public announcements of reform intentions without tangible results are no longer sufficient.

There must be a rush to prepare clear legislation or an executive framework, in cooperation with the private sector and judicial and legal bodies, including practical mechanisms for collecting rights, among them speeding up enforcement procedures, strengthening disclosure of funds and assets, organizing repayment plans, and dealing with cases of deliberate evasion of payment, within safeguards that prevent abuse and protect debtors acting in good faith.

It doesn’t make sense for governments to respond to international requirements while at the same time overlooking the requirements of the national economy and the rights of citizens and business owners. Commitment to human rights standards must proceed in parallel with protecting economic rights, not at their expense.

The government is called upon to close this gap and move alternatives out of the cycle of postponement and into implementation. What’s needed isn’t reproducing debtor imprisonment in other forms, but building a fair, effective system that ensures obligations are fulfilled, protects market confidence, and achieves balance between creditors’ rights and debtors’ safeguards.

The delay on this file is no longer merely a legislative delay but has become an economic challenge requiring an urgent government decision and clear accountability.