Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Preliminary observation regarding compulsory prison labour for prisoners convicted of political offences. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that work is compulsory for all convicted prisoners (section 90 of Decree
No. 63‑103 establishing the organization and internal rules of prison establishments). Section 18 of the Penal Code states that persons serving sentences for criminal political offences are separated from ordinary prisoners and are not subject to forced labour. Section 24 of the Penal Code states that persons serving prison sentences are employed in all kinds of work (paragraph 1) and that persons serving prison sentences for political offences are separated from other prisoners (paragraph 2). The Committee concluded from a combined reading of these provisions that persons serving sentences for political offences were also subject to the obligation to work in prison. In its latest report the Government indicates, with regard to the provisions of section 24 of the Penal Code, that criminal courts always seek to distinguish between ordinary and political prisoners and that the latter are never subjected to the provisions of section 24(1) and are therefore never employed in “all kinds of work”.

The Committee notes these explanations. It considers that if, in practice, persons serving sentences for political offences are not subject to the obligation to work in prison, the legislation should be amended to this effect (section 24(2) of the Penal Code and also section 90 of Decree No. 63-103, which makes work compulsory for all convicted prisoners without any distinction regarding the nature of the offence), in order to avoid any ambiguity. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to this end and to supply information on the concept of political offences liable to incur a prison sentence, including examples illustrating the scope of this concept.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imprisonment with compulsory labour as punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Pending the amendments suggested in the previous point, the Committee would like the Government to continue to supply information on the application of the following provisions of the legislation:

–      sections 54–61 of Act No. 98-23 amending Act No. 97-26 establishing the freedom of the press, which provide for varying terms of imprisonment for different offences against the press laws: the Government indicates in its report that a new bill has been submitted to the National Assembly and that it will keep the Office informed of developments. The Committee notes this information. It also notes that a general assembly of the communication media was held in March 2010, during which a preliminary draft of legislation to decriminalize offences against the press laws in Niger was discussed. The Committee hopes that this draft legislation will be adopted in the very near future so that persons who exercise their freedom of opinion or expression through the press cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for offences against the press laws such as abuse, defamation or misinformation;

–      sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations: the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether use has been made of the provisions of section 2 of this Ordinance to prohibit the creation of an organization or declare it null and void and, if so, under what circumstances. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether any persons have been sentenced to imprisonment for participating in the creation or administration of an undeclared association.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments the Committee noted that the national legislation placed excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities, particularly by laying down the obligation to provide a minimum service in vital services defined more broadly than essential services in the strict sense of the term, and also provided for the possibility of requisitioning officials for this purpose (Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 of 21 March 1996 establishing, respectively, the conditions for exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities and the list of strategic and/or vital services). The Committee also noted that, under the terms of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, public servants found guilty of dereliction of duty, the aim or effect of which is to prevent or suspend the accomplishment of their tasks, shall be liable to imprisonment of one to three years. The Committee considered that, inasmuch as the provisions relating to dereliction of duty apply to officials who, in the context of a strike, refuse to provide the minimum service or obey a requisition order, these workers might be sentenced to imprisonment in which they might be subjected to compulsory prison labour.

Given the lack of information from the Government in its latest report on the application of the provisions of the legislation, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the penalties that might be incurred by state officials and officials of territorial communities who have been requisitioned and who refuse to provide the minimum service in a vital or strategic service of the State. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether these officials might be considered guilty of dereliction of duty, under the terms of section 119(2) of the Penal Code, and to supply information on any court decision issued on this basis further to a strike in the public service.