Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 1, paragraph 1, and 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Legislation concerning compulsory public works or services. In its earlier comments, the Committee observed that the Swazi Administration Order, Act No. 6 of 1998, which provided for the duty of Swazis to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works, such as, for example, compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads, enforceable with severe penalties for non-compliance, was in serious breach of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that the Swazi Administration Order had been challenged before the High Court of Swaziland which declared the Order null and void, and that the Swaziland Government did not appeal against that judgement.

The Committee notes with interest the text of the above decision of the High Court of Swaziland (Case No. 2823/2000), provided by the Government with its report. It asks the Government to supply information on the practical consequences of this decision.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Legislation concerning compulsory public works or services. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Swazi Administration Order, No. 6 of 1998, which provided for the duty of Swazis to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works, such as, for example, compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads, enforceable with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning the Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions and which was repealed by the abovementioned Order No. 6 of 1998, the Committee observed that provisions of this kind were in serious breach of the Convention.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication in its report received in January 2007 that the Swazi Administration Order, 1998, was challenged at the High Court of Swaziland (Case No. 2823/2000), which declared the Order null and void, and that the Swaziland Government did not appeal against that judgement. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would communicate a copy of the High Court judgement with its next report.

 

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes with regret that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the observations on the application of the Convention made in June 1999 and June 2001 by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). The SFTU alleged that the new Swazi Administration Order, No. 6 of 1998, which repealed the Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, legalized forced labour, slavery and exploitation with gross impunity and gave the Chiefs the right to penalize non-compliance with the Order with fines, imprisonment, demolition without compensation, etc. The SFTU referred, inter alia, to sections 6, 27 and 28 of the 1998 Order, which provide for the duty of Swazis to assist the Ngwenyama and Chiefs; the duty to attend before Ngwenyama, Chiefs and government officers when so directed, under the threat of punishment; and the duty to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works.

The Committee has noted the Government’s view expressed in the report that participation in the national duties is not a form of forced or compulsory labour, since this is not being done for purpose of financial gain and Swazis offer themselves voluntarily for such services.

However, in its earlier comments the Committee noted that the combination of sections 6, 27, 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) and 34 of the new Swazi Administration Order (No. 6 of 1998) provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads, enforceable with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning the abovementioned Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions, the Committee observed that provisions of this kind are in serious breach of the Convention. Referring also to paragraphs 36, 37 and 74 83 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such provisions should be limited in scope to cases of a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or well-being of the population, or (in case of compulsory cultivation) to circumstances of famine or a deficiency of food supplies and always on the condition that the food or produce shall remain the property of the individuals or the community producing it, or (to fall under the exemption made for minor communal services) to cases where work is limited to minor maintenance and its duration is substantially reduced. Since the above provisions of the 1998 Order are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2)(d) and (e) of the Convention, such as e.g. cases of emergency (fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, etc.) or minor communal services, they are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998, so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which these provisions are being applied in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the observations on the application of the Convention made in June 1999 and June 2001 by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). The SFTU alleged that the new Swazi Administration Order, No. 6 of 1998, which repealed the Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, legalized forced labour, slavery and exploitation with gross impunity and gave the Chiefs the right to penalize non-compliance with the Order with fines, imprisonment, demolition without compensation, etc. The SFTU referred, inter alia, to sections 6, 27 and 28 of the 1998 Order, which provide for the duty of Swazis to assist the Ngwenyama and Chiefs; the duty to attend before Ngwenyama, Chiefs and government officers when so directed, under the threat of punishment; and the duty to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works.

The Committee has noted the Government’s view expressed in the report that participation in the national duties is not a form of forced or compulsory labour, since this is not being done for purpose of financial gain and Swazis offer themselves voluntarily for such services.

However, in its earlier comments the Committee noted that the combination of sections 6, 27, 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) and 34 of the new Swazi Administration Order (No. 6 of 1998) provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads, enforceable with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning the abovementioned Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions, the Committee observed that provisions of this kind are in serious breach of the Convention. Referring also to paragraphs 36, 37 and 74 83 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such provisions should be limited in scope to cases of a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or well-being of the population, or (in case of compulsory cultivation) to circumstances of famine or a deficiency of food supplies and always on the condition that the food or produce shall remain the property of the individuals or the community producing it, or (to fall under the exemption made for minor communal services) to cases where work is limited to minor maintenance and its duration is substantially reduced. Since the above provisions of the 1998 Order are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2)(d) and (e) of the Convention, such as e.g. cases of emergency (fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, etc.) or minor communal services, they are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998, so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which these provisions are being applied in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee has noted the Government’s brief report on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the observations on the application of the Convention made in June 1999 and June 2001 by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). The SFTU alleged that the new Swazi Administration Order, No. 6 of 1998, which repealed the Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, legalized forced labour, slavery and exploitation with gross impunity and gave the Chiefs the right to penalize non-compliance with the Order with fines, imprisonment, demolition without compensation, etc. The SFTU referred, inter alia, to sections 6, 27 and 28 of the 1998 Order, which provide for the duty of Swazis to assist the Ngwenyama and Chiefs; the duty to attend before Ngwenyama, Chiefs and government officers when so directed, under the threat of punishment; and the duty to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works.

The Committee has noted the Government’s view expressed in the report that participation in the national duties is not a form of forced or compulsory labour, since this is not being done for purpose of financial gain and Swazis offer themselves voluntarily for such services.

However, in its earlier comments the Committee noted that the combination of sections 6, 27, 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) and 34 of the new Swazi Administration Order (No. 6 of 1998) provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads, enforceable with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning the abovementioned Swazi Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions, the Committee observed that provisions of this kind are in serious breach of the Convention. Referring also to paragraphs 36, 37 and 74-83 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such provisions should be limited in scope to cases of a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or well-being of the population, or (in case of compulsory cultivation) to circumstances of famine or a deficiency of food supplies and always on the condition that the food or produce shall remain the property of the individuals or the community producing it, or (to fall under the exemption made for minor communal services) to cases where work is limited to minor maintenance and its duration is substantially reduced. Since the above provisions of the 1998 Order are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2)(d) and (e) of the Convention, such as e.g. cases of emergency (fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, etc.) or minor communal services, they are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998, so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which these provisions are being applied in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. The Committee notes a communication received in June 2001 from the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU), which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by Swaziland. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government in July 2001, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. It hopes that the Government’s comments will be supplied in its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

2. The Committee notes with regret that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Articles 1(1) and 2(1), and 2(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, section 10(1)(p), (q) and (u) of which provided for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion work and other works of construction and maintenance. It expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to amend these provisions in order to ensure observance of the Convention.

The Committee has noted the observations on the application of the Convention made in June 1999 by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). According to the SFTU’s allegations, the new Swazi Administration Order of 1998, which repealed the Swaziland Administrations Act of 1950, legalizes forced labour, slavery and exploitation with gross impunity and gives the chiefs the right to penalize non-compliance with the Order with fines, imprisonment, demolition without compensation, etc. The SFTU refers, inter alia, to sections 6, 27 and 28 of the 1998 Order, which provide for the duty of Swazis to assist the Ngwenyama and chiefs; the duty to attend before Ngwenyama, chiefs and government officers when so directed, under the threat of punishment; and the duty to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works. The Committee has noted that these observations were transmitted to the Government in June 1999, for such comments as might be judged appropriate, and that no comments have been received from the Government so far.

The Committee has noted that the combination of sections 6, 21, 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) and 34 of the new Swazi Administration Order (No. 6 of 1998) provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions, the Committee observes that provisions of this kind are in serious breach of the Convention. They are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2), such as cases of emergency (fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, etc.) or minor communal services. The Committee also refers to paragraphs 36, 37 and 74 to 83 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such provisions should be limited in scope to cases of a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or well-being of the population, or (in case of compulsory cultivation) to circumstances of famine or a deficiency of food supplies and always on the condition that the food or produce shall remain the property of the individuals or the community producing it, or (to fall under the exemption made for minor communal services) to cases where work is limited to minor maintenance and its duration is substantially reduced.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998 so as to ensure compliance with the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate the progress made in that respect and, in the meantime, to supply full information on the manner in which these provisions are being applied in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

  Articles 1(1) and 2(1) and (b), (d) and (e) of the Convention.  In its earlier comments the Committee referred to the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, section 10(1)(p), (q) and (u) of which provided for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion work and other works of construction and maintenance. It expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to amend these provisions in order to ensure observance of the Convention.

The Committee has noted the observations on the application of the Convention made in June 1999 by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). According to the SFTU’s allegations, the new Swazi Administration Order of 1998, which repealed the Swaziland Administrations Act of 1950, legalizes forced labour, slavery and exploitation with gross impunity and gives the chiefs the right to penalize non-compliance with the Order with fines, imprisonment, demolition without compensation, etc. The SFTU refers, inter alia, to sections 6, 27 and 28 of the 1998 Order, which provide for the duty of Swazis to assist the Ngwenyama and chiefs; the duty to attend before Ngwenyama, chiefs and government officers when so directed, under the threat of punishment; and the duty to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works. The Committee has noted that these observations were transmitted to the Government in June 1999, for such comments as might be judged appropriate, and that no comments have been received from the Government so far.

The Committee has noted that the combination of sections 6, 21, 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) and 34 of the new Swazi Administration Order (No. 6 of 1998) provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions, the Committee observes that provisions of this kind are in serious breach of the Convention. They are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2), such as cases of emergency (fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, etc.) or minor communal services. The Committee also refers to paragraphs 36, 37 and 74 to 83 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such provisions should be limited in scope to cases of a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or well-being of the population, or (in case of compulsory cultivation) to circumstances of famine or a deficiency of food supplies and always on the condition that the food or produce shall remain the property of the individuals or the community producing it, or (to fall under the exemption made for minor communal services) to cases where work is limited to minor maintenance and its duration is substantially reduced.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998 so as to ensure compliance with the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate the progress made in that respect and, in the meantime, to supply full information on the manner in which these provisions are being applied in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) and (2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, section 10(1)(p), (q) and (u) of which provided for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion work and other works of construction and maintenance. It expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to amend these provisions in order to ensure observance of the Convention.

The Committee notes the observations on the application of the Convention made in June 1999 by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU). According to the SFTU's allegations, the new Swazi Administration Order of 1998, which repealed the Swaziland Administrations Act of 1950, legalizes forced labour, slavery and exploitation with gross impunity and gives the chiefs the right to penalize non-compliance with the Order with fines, imprisonment, demolition without compensation, etc. The SFTU refers, inter alia, to sections 6, 27 and 28 of the 1998 Order, which provide for the duty of Swazis to assist the Ngwenyama and chiefs; the duty to attend before Ngwenyama, chiefs and government officers when so directed, under the threat of punishment; and the duty to obey orders requiring participation in compulsory works. The Committee notes that these observations were transmitted to the Government in June 1999, for such comments as might be judged appropriate, and that no comments have been received from the Government so far.

The Committee notes that the combination of sections 6, 21, 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) and 34 of the new Swazi Administration Order (No. 6 of 1998) provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion works and the making, maintenance and protection of roads with severe penalties for non-compliance. With reference to the comments it has been making for a number of years concerning Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, which contained similar provisions, the Committee observes that provisions of this kind are in serious breach of the Convention. They are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2), such as cases of emergency (fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, etc.) or minor communal services. The Committee also refers to paragraphs 36, 37 and 74 to 83 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such provisions should be limited in scope to cases of a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or well-being of the population, or (in case of compulsory cultivation) to circumstances of famine or a deficiency of food supplies and always on the condition that the food or produce shall remain the property of the individuals or the community producing it, or (to fall under the exemption made for minor communal services) to cases where work is limited to minor maintenance and its duration is substantially reduced.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 28(1)(p), (q) and (u) of the Swazi Administration Order, 1998 so as to ensure compliance with the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate the progress made in that respect and, in the meantime, to supply full information on the manner in which these provisions are being applied in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention. 1. The previous comments of the Committee have referred to the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, section 10(1)(p), (q) and (u) of which provides for orders requiring compulsory cultivation, anti-soil erosion work and other works of construction and maintenance. In its latest report, the Government refers to the traditional nature of practices based on an African philosophy of communalism only some of which are found in the Swaziland Administration Act. The Government refers to the Ekhaya Policy of return to the rural village, born of concern over distribution of wealth and aimed in part at reducing crime and peri-urban poverty: this was never a national policy, nor was there any forced migration. Food produced as a result of those practices was intended to benefit various needy sections of the population and not solely for times of famine. These issues were not addressed in the tripartite task force, since it was not brought up as a concern by the nationals or any formation of Swazi nationals.

2. The Committee refers to paragraphs 74 to 83 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it explains the incompatibility of national provisions of this kind with the Convention if they are not restricted in application to the circumstances contemplated in Article 2(2), and the kinds of measures taken in some countries to remedy the situation. It notes the Government's indication that the Act has not yet been amended. The Committee would hope the tripartite task force mentioned by the Government would be able to discuss means whereby desirable outcomes can still be achieved without offending the Convention, and that the Government will take steps to amend section 10(1)(p), (q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act in order to ensure compliance with the Convention. Please include in the next report information on progress made in that respect, as well as on the manner in which the provisions are in the meantime being applied in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee recalls that its comments relate to certain provisions of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950:

1. The Committee observed that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, orders may be issued requiring any Swazi to cultivate land to such extent and with such crops as will secure an adequate supply of food for his support and that of his dependents. The Government stated in this connection that the food produced remains the worker's property, that the provision is used as a method of precaution against deficiency of food supplies and that it reflects a long-standing custom, under which the food thus produced is used by the chief, who has responsibility to ensure his people have enough food, and at times by the community.

The Committee observed that on condition that the food remains the property of the individual, Article 19 of the Convention authorizes recourse to compulsory cultivation, but only as a method of precaution against famine or a deficiency of food supplies. The Committee noted however that while section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act No. 79 of 1950 is limited in scope to such cases of emergency, section 10(1)(p) is not. The Committee likewise noted that while the powers of chiefs are limited under section 11 of the Act to cases when "there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that famine exists or is likely to ensue", no such limitations are provided for regarding orders made under section 10(1)(p).

Having regard also to the actual practice mentioned by the Government, the Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. The Committee suggested in this relation that the Government might envisage inserting at the beginning of section 10(1)(p) the words: "when there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue" and insert after the world "food" the words: "which will remain his property" (having regard to the custom referred to by the Government that the supply of food produced remains the worker's property).

The Committee expresses the hope that the review of legislation will also take into consideration the Swaziland Administration Act and that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the amendments made.

2. The Committee also referred to section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act, under which orders may be issued to be obeyed by Swazis, preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion work as well as to section 10(1)(u) providing for the making, maintenance and protection of roads.

The Government has indicated in 1982 that steps were being taken to amend section 10(1) of the Act. In 1987 the Government stated that section 10(1)(q) was being used to prevent soil erosion and to encourage people to engage in agriculture, considered as minor communal services forming part of normal civic obligations, given the shortage of home-produced food. The Government added that this policy of encouragement, known as "EKHAYA" Policy, was declared in 1985, and had met with a good response among some of those previously unemployed in towns. As regards section 10(1)(u) of the Act, the Government stated that it had been used after a case of natural calamity in 1984.

While taking note of these explanations the Committee pointed out that sections 10(1)(q) and 10(1)(u) are not limited to the exceptions regarding minor communal services and emergency work as defined in Article 2, paragraphs 2(e) and 2(d), of the Convention: the level and magnitude of the services imposed are not limited (orders under section 10(1) may be issued at the national level by the King, and enforced against the opposition of the area chief (section 12)), and consultation of the local community or its representatives is not required. Similarly, neither sections 10(1)(q) nor 10(1)(u) are limited in scope to emergency work required in circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

As regards actual practice, the Committee noted that section 10(1)(q) had been used since 1985 to transfer persons previously unemployed in towns to agricultural work with a view to reducing dependence on food imports. The Committee pointed out, referring also to point 1 above, that compulsory labour for such purposes was not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would henceforth rely on free labour for agricultural production as well as for the building, maintenance and protection of roads benefiting a wider group that a local community, and that sections 10(1)(q) and 10(1)(u) of the Swaziland Administration Act, would be amended to ensure observance of the Convention. Noting the Government's statement that steps were being taken to insert consultation requirements as in section 144(4) of the Employment Act into the Swaziland Administration Act, the Committee expressed the hope that the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention regarding the minor nature of the work and its local purview would likewise be embodied.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken and report on the amendments made.

The Committee also hopes that the Government will indicate the manner in which the "EKHAYA" Policy is being implemented.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's information in its report that the Minister of Labour and Public Service has appointed a Tripartite Commission to examine all aspects of labour and that comments will be taken into consideration during the discussion of the final draft of the report.

The Committee recalls that its comments relate to certain provisions of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950:

1. The Committee observed that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, orders may be issued requiring any Swazi to cultivate land to such extent and with such crops as will secure an adequate supply of food for his support and that of his dependents. The Government stated in this connection that the food produced remains the worker's property, that the provision is used as a method of precaution against deficiency of food supplies and that it reflects a long-standing custom, under which the food thus produced is used by the chief, who has responsibility to ensure his people have enough food, and at times by the community.

The Committee observed that on condition that the food remains the property of the individual, Article 19 of the Convention authorizes recourse to compulsory cultivation, but only as a method of precaution against famine or a deficiency of food supplies. The Committee noted however that while section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act No. 79 of 1950 is limited in scope to such cases of emergency, section 10(1)(p) is not. The Committee likewise noted that while the powers of chiefs are limited under section 11 of the Act to cases when "there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that famine exists or is likely to ensue", no such limitations are provided for regarding orders made under section 10(1)(p).

Having regard also to the actual practice mentioned by the Government, the Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. The Committee suggested in this relation that the Government might envisage inserting at the beginning of section 10(1)(p) the words: "when there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue" and insert after the world "food" the words: "which will remain his property" (having regard to the custom referred to by the Government that the supply of food produced remains the worker's property).

The Committee expresses the hope that the review of legislation will also take into consideration the Swaziland Administration Act and that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the amendments made.

2. The Committee also referred to section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act, under which orders may be issued to be obeyed by Swazis, preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion work as well as to section 10(1)(u) providing for the making, maintenance and protection of roads.

The Government has indicated in 1982 that steps were being taken to amend section 10(1) of the Act. In 1987 the Government stated that section 10(1)(q) was being used to prevent soil erosion and to encourage people to engage in agriculture, considered as minor communal services forming part of normal civic obligations, given the shortage of home-produced food. The Government added that this policy of encouragement, known as "EKHAYA" Policy, was declared in 1985, and had met with a good response among some of those previously unemployed in towns. As regards section 10(1)(u) of the Act, the Government stated that it had been used after a case of natural calamity in 1984.

While taking note of these explanations the Committee pointed out that sections 10(1)(q) and 10(1)(u) are not limited to the exceptions regarding minor communal services and emergency work as defined in Article 2, paragraphs 2(e) and 2(d), of the Convention: the level and magnitude of the services imposed are not limited (orders under section 10(1) may be issued at the national level by the King, and enforced against the opposition of the area chief (section 12)), and consultation of the local community or its representatives is not required. Similarly, neither sections 10(1)(q) nor 10(1)(u) are limited in scope to emergency work required in circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

As regards actual practice, the Committee noted that section 10(1)(q) had been used since 1985 to transfer persons previously unemployed in towns to agricultural work with a view to reducing dependence on food imports. The Committee pointed out, referring also to point 1 above, that compulsory labour for such purposes was not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would henceforth rely on free labour for agricultural production as well as for the building, maintenance and protection of roads benefiting a wider group that a local community, and that sections 10(1)(q) and 10(1)(u) of the Swaziland Administration Act, would be amended to ensure observance of the Convention. Noting the Government's statement that steps were being taken to insert consultation requirements as in section 144(4) of the Employment Act into the Swaziland Administration Act, the Committee expressed the hope that the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention regarding the minor nature of the work and its local purview would likewise be embodied.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken and report on the amendments made.

The Committee also hopes that the Government will indicate the manner in which the "EKHAYA" Policy is being implemented.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report received on 26 March 1992 that a detailed report on the Committee's comments was being prepared, jointly with the tripartite Sub-Committee of the Labour Advisory Board.

The Committee notes however that no report was since received. The Committee expresses once more the hope that the Government will provide in its next report detailed information on progress made concerning the following matters raised previously:

1. In comments made for several years, the Committee observed that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, orders may be issued requiring any Swazi to cultivate land to such an extent and with such crops as will secure an adequate supply of food for his support and that of his dependants. The Committee noted the Government's statement that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, the adequate supply of food produced remains the worker's property. The Committee observed that on condition that the food remains the property of the individual, Article 19 of the Convention authorizes recourse to compulsory cultivation but only as a method of precaution against famine or a deficiency of food supplies; while section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, is limited in scope to such case of emergencies, section 10(1)(p) is not.

In its report for the period ending June 1987 the Government stated that section 10(1)(p) is used as a method of precaution against deficiency of food supplies. While reaffirming that under the terms of this provision the food remains the property of the individual, the Government added that the provision reflects long-standing custom, under which the food thus produced is used by the chief, who has a responsibility to ensure his people have enough food, and at times by the community.

The Committee took note of these indications. It observed that, while powers of chiefs under section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act are limited to cases when "there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue", no such limitation is provided regarding orders made under section 10(1)(p) of the Act. The Committee accordingly expressed the hope that, having regard also to actual practice as mentioned by the Government, the necessary measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point, e.g. by inserting at the beginning of section 10(1)(p) the words "when there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue -". Having regard also to the custom referred to by the Government, it appears furthermore necessary to clarify the ownership of the food produced, e.g. by inserting in section 10(1)(p), after the word "food" the words: "which will remain his property".

The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the amendments made.

2. The Committee previously also referred to section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act, under which orders may be issued to be obeyed by Swazis, preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion work, and to section 10(1)(u), providing for the making, maintenance and protection of roads. The Committee had expressed the hope that these provisions would be amended so as to restrict orders to minor communal services falling within Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention, and the Government had indicated in its report received in 1982 that steps were being taken to amend section 10(1) of the Act.

In its report for the period ending 30 June 1987, the Government stated that section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act is being used to prevent soil erosion and to encourage people to engage in agriculture, which it considers as minor communal services forming part of normal civic obligations, given the shortage of home-produced food. The Government added that this policy of encouragement, which is known as "EKHAYA" Policy, was declared in early 1985, has met with a good response among some of those previously unemployed in towns, and is designed in particular to reduce dependence on food imports from South Africa. As regards section 10(1)(u) of the same Act, the Government stated that it was used particularly after a cyclone in 1984, i.e. a case of natural calamity under Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention, but that recourse to this provision has since dropped off.

The Committee took note of these indications. It pointed out, however, that the present wording of section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act is not limited to the exceptions regarding minor communal services and emergency work, as defined in Article 2, paragraph 2(e) and (d), of the Convention. As the Committee explained in paragraph 37 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(e), is limited by three criteria:

- the services must be "minor services", i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work and - in exceptional cases - to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself (a small school, a medical consultation and treatment room, etc.);

- the services must be "communal services" performed "in the direct interest of the community", and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and

- the "members of the community" (i.e. the community which has to perform the services) or their "direct" representatives (e.g. the village council) must "have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services".

None of these limitations is embodied in section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Act, since the level and magnitude of the services imposed are not limited; orders under section 10(1) may be issued at the national level by the King in Council and enforced against the opposition of the area chief (section 12), and consultation of the local community or its representatives is not required. Similarly, neither section 10(1)(q) nor (u) are limited in scope to emergency work required in circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

As regards actual practice, the Committee noted from the Government's report that section 10(1)(q), although formally limited to anti-erosion work has been used since 1985 to transfer persons previously unemployed in towns to agricultural work with a view to reducing dependence on food imports. Referring also to the explanations in point 1 above, the Committee must point out once again that compulsory labour for such purposes is not compatible with the Convention.

Having regard to the Government's assurances that its policy has met with a good response from those concerned, the Committee trusts that the Government will henceforth rely on free labour for agricultural production as well as for the building, maintenance and protection of roads benefiting a wider group than a local community, and that section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act will be amended, as announced by the Government in 1982, so as to ensure observance of the Convention. In this connection the Committee noted with interest the Government's statement that steps were being taken to insert consultation requirements as in section 144(4) of the Employment Act into the Swaziland Administration Act. It again expresses the hope that the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention regarding the minor nature of the work and its local purview will likewise be embodied.

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to this effect and also to supply details on the manner in which the "EKHAYA" Policy is being implemented, indicating the number of people involved, their home towns or areas and places of affectation, and their rights and duties.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

With reference to its direct requests of 1990 and 1991, the Committee notes with regret that the Government states once again in its report that there has been no change. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information in its next report on progress made concerning the following matters raised previously:

1. In comments made for several years, the Committee observed that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, orders may be issued requiring any Swazi to cultivate land to such an extent and with such crops as will secure an adequate supply of food for his support and that of his dependants. The Committee noted the Government's statement that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, the adequate supply of food produced remains the worker's property. The Committee observed that on condition that the food remains the property of the individual, Article 19 of the Convention authorises recourse to compulsory cultivation but only as a method of precaution against famine or a deficiency of food supplies; while section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, is limited in scope to such case of emergencies, section 10(1)(p) is not.

In its report for the period ending June 1987 the Government stated that section 10(1)(p) is used as a method of precaution against deficiency of food supplies. While reaffirming that under the terms of this provision the food remains the property of the individual, the Government added that the provision reflects long-standing custom, under which the food thus produced is used by the chief, who has a responsibility to ensure his people have enough food, and at times by the community.

The Committee took note of these indications. It observed that, while powers of chiefs under section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act are limited to cases when "there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue", no such limitation is provided regarding orders made under section 10(1)(p) of the Act. The Committee accordingly expressed the hope that, having regard also to actual practice as mentioned by the Government, the necessary measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point, e.g. by inserting at the beginning of section 10(1)(p) the words "when there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue -". Having regard also to the custom referred to by the Government, it appears furthermore necessary to clarify the ownership of the food produced, e.g. by inserting in section 10(1)(p), after the word "food" the words: "which will remain his property".

The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the amendments made.

2. The Committee previously also referred to section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act, under which orders may be issued to be obeyed by Swazis, preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion work, and to section 10(1)(u), providing for the making, maintenance and protection of roads. The Committee had expressed the hope that these provisions would be amended so as to restrict orders to minor communal services falling within Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention, and the Government had indicated in its report received in 1982 that steps were being taken to amend section 10(1) of the Act.

In its report for the period ending 30 June 1987, the Government stated that section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act is being used to prevent soil erosion and to encourage people to engage in agriculture, which it considers as minor communal services forming part of normal civic obligations, given the shortage of home-produced food. The Government added that this policy of encouragement, which is known as "EKHAYA" Policy, was declared in early 1985, has met with a good response among some of those previously unemployed in towns, and is designed in particular to reduce dependence on food imports from South Africa. As regards section 10(1)(u) of the same Act, the Government stated that it was used particularly after a cyclone in 1984, i.e. a case of natural calamity under Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention, but that recourse to this provision has since dropped off.

The Committee took note of these indications. It pointed out, however, that the present wording of section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act is not limited to the exceptions regarding minor communal services and emergency work, as defined in Article 2, paragraph 2(e) and (d), of the Convention. As the Committee explained in paragraph 37 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the scope of Article 2, paragraph 2(e), is limited by three criteria:

- the services must be "minor services", i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work and - in exceptional cases - to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself (a small school, a medical consultation and treatment room, etc.);

- the services must be "communal services" performed "in the direct interest of the community", and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and

- the "members of the community" (i.e. the community which has to perform the services) or their "direct" representatives (e.g. the village council) must "have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services".

None of these limitations is embodied in section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Act, since the level and magnitude of the services imposed are not limited; orders under section 10(1) may be issued at the national level by the King in Council and enforced against the opposition of the area chief (section 12), and consultation of the local community or its representatives is not required. Similarly, neither section 10(1)(q) nor (u) are limited in scope to emergency work required in circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

As regards actual practice, the Committee noted from the Government's report that section 10(1)(q), although formally limited to anti-erosion work has been used since 1985 to transfer persons previously unemployed in towns to agricultural work with a view to reducing dependence on food imports. Referring also to the explanations in point 1 above, the Committee must point out once again that compulsory labour for such purposes is not compatible with the Convention.

Having regard to the Government's assurances that its policy has met with a good response from those concerned, the Committee trusts that the Government will henceforth rely on free labour for agricultural production as well as for the building, maintenance and protection of roads benefiting a wider group than a local community, and that section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act will be amended, as announced by the Government in 1982, so as to ensure observance of the Convention. In this connection the Committee noted with interest the Government's statement that steps were being taken to insert consultation requirements as in section 144(4) of the Employment Act into the Swaziland Administration Act. It again expresses the hope that the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 2(e), of the Convention regarding the minor nature of the work and its local purview will likewise be embodied.

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to this effect and also to supply details on the manner in which the "EKHAYA" Policy is being implemented, indicating the number of people involved, their home towns or areas and places of affectation, and their rights and duties.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that there has been no change. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon report on progress made concerning the following matters raised previously.

1. In comments made for several years, the Committee observed that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, orders may be issued requiring any Swazi to cultivate land to such an extent and with such crops as will secure an adequate supply of food for his support and that of his dependants. The Committee noted the Government's statement that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, the adequate supply of food produced remains the worker's property. The Committee observed that on condition that the food remains the property of the individual, Article 19 of the Convention authorises recourse to compulsory cultivation but only as a method of precaution against famine or a deficiency of food supplies; while section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, is limited in scope to such case of emergencies, section 10(1)(p) is not.

In its report for the period ending June 1987 the Government stated that section 10(1)(p) is used as a method of precaution against deficiency of food supplies. While reaffirming that under the terms of this provision the food remains the property of the individual, the Government added that the provision reflects long-standing custom, under which the food thus produced is used by the chief, who has a responsibility to ensure his people have enough food, and at times by the community.

The Committee took note of these indications. It observed that, while powers of chiefs under section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act are limited to cases when "there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue", no such limitation is provided regarding orders made under section 10(1)(p) of the Act. The Committee accordingly hopes that, having regard also to actual practice as mentioned by the Government, the necessary measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point, e.g. by inserting at the beginning of section 10(1)(p) the words "when there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue -". Having regard also to the custom referred to by the Government, it appears furthermore necessary to clarify the ownership of the food produced, e.g. by inserting in section 10(1)(p), after the word "food" the words: "which will remain his property". The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the amendments made.

2. The Committee previously also referred to section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act, under which orders may be issued to be obeyed by Swazis, preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion work, and to section 10(1)(u), providing for the making, maintenance and protection of roads. The Committee had expressed the hope that these provisions would be amended so as to restrict orders to minor communal services falling within Article 2, paragraph (2)(e), of the Convention, and the Government had indicated in its report received in 1982 that steps were being taken to amend section 10(1) of the Act.

In its report for the period ending 30 June 1987, the Government stated that section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act is being used to prevent soil erosion and to encourage people to engage in agriculture, which it considers as minor communal services forming part of normal civic obligations, given the shortage of home-produced food. The Government added that this policy of encouragement, which is known as "EKHAYA" Policy, was declared in early 1985, has met with a good response among some of those previously unemployed in towns, and is designed in particular to reduce dependence on food imports from South Africa. As regards section 10(1)(u) of the same Act, the Government stated that it was used particularly after a cyclone in 1984, i.e. a case of natural calamity under Article 2, paragraph (2)(d), of the Convention, but that recourse to this provision has since dropped off.

The Committee took note of these indications. It pointed out, however, that the present wording of section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act is not limited to the exceptions regarding minor communal services and emergency work, as defined in Article 2, paragraph 2(e) and (d), of the Convention. As the Committee explained in paragraph 37 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the scope of Article 2, paragraph (2)(e), is limited by three criteria:

- the services must be "minor services", i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work and - in exceptional cases - to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself (a small school, a medical consultation and treatment room, etc.);

- the services must be "communal services" performed "in the direct interest of the community", and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and

- the "members of the community" (i.e. the community which has to perform the services) or their "direct" representatives (e.g. the village council) must "have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services".

None of these limitations is embodied in section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Act, since the level and magnitude of the services imposed are not limited; orders under section 10(1) may be issued at the national level by the King in Council and enforced against the opposition of the area chief (section 12), and consultation of the local community or its representatives is not required. Similarly, neither section 10(1)(q) nor (u) are limited in scope to emergency work required in circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

As regards actual practice, the Committee noted from the Government's report that section 10(1)(q), although formally limited to anti-erosion work has been used since 1985 to transfer persons previously unemployed in towns to agricultural work with a view to reducing dependence on food imports. Referring also to the explanations in point 1 above, the Committee must point out that compulsory labour for such purposes is not compatible with the Convention.

Having regard to the Government's assurances that its policy has met with a good response from those concerned, the Committee trusts that the Government will henceforth rely on free labour for agricultural production as well as for the building, maintenance and protection of roads benefiting a wider group than a local community, and that section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act will be amended, as announced by the Government in 1982, so as to ensure observance of the Convention. In this connection the Committee noted with interest the Government's statement that steps are being taken to insert consultation requirements as in section 144(4) of the Employment Act into the Swaziland Administration Act, and hopes that the requirements of Article 2, paragraph (2)(e), of the Convention regarding the minor nature of the work and its local purview will likewise be embodied.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to this effect and also to supply details on the manner in which the "EKHAYA" Policy is being implemented, indicating the number of people involved, their home towns or areas and places of affectation, and their rights and duties.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters:

1. In comments made for several years, the Committee observed that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, orders may be issued requiring any Swazi to cultivate land to such an extent and with such crops as will secure an adequate supply of food for his support and that of his dependants. The Committee noted the Government's statement that under section 10(1)(p) of the Swaziland Administration Act, the adequate supply of food produced remains the worker's property. The Committee observed that on condition that the food remains the property of the individual, Article 19 of the Convention authorises recourse to compulsory cultivation but only as a method of precaution against famine or a deficiency of food supplies; while section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act, No. 79 of 1950, is limited in scope to such case of emergencies, section 10(1)(p) is not.

In its report for the period ending June 1987 the Government stated that section 10(1)(p) is used as a method of precaution against deficiency of food supplies. While reaffirming that under the terms of this provision the food remains the property of the individual, the Government added that the provision reflects long-standing custom, under which the food thus produced is used by the chief, who has a responsibility to ensure his people have enough food, and at times by the community.

The Committee took note of these indications. It observed that, while powers of chiefs under section 11 of the Swaziland Administration Act are limited to cases when "there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue", no such limitation is provided regarding orders made under section 10(1)(p) of the Act. The Committee accordingly hopes that, having regard also to actual practice as mentioned by the Government, the necessary measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point, e.g. by inserting at the beginning of section 10(1)(p) the words "when there is or is likely to be such shortage of food that a famine exists or is likely to ensue -". Having regard also to the custom referred to by the Government, it appears furthermore necessary to clarify the ownership of the food produced, e.g. by inserting in section 10(1)(p), after the word "food" the words: "which will remain his property". The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the amendments made.

2. The Committee previously also referred to section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act, under which orders may be issued to be obeyed by Swazis, preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion work, and to section 10(1)(u), providing for the making, maintenance and protection of roads. The Committee had expressed the hope that these provisions would be amended so as to restrict orders to minor communal services falling within Article 2, paragraph (2)(e), of the Convention, and the Government had indicated in its report received in 1982 that steps were being taken to amend section 10(1) of the Act.

In its report for the period ending 30 June 1987, the Government stated that section 10(1)(q) of the Swaziland Administration Act is being used to prevent soil erosion and to encourage people to engage in agriculture, which it considers as minor communal services forming part of normal civic obligations, given the shortage of home-produced food. The Government added that this policy of encouragement, which is known as "EKHAYA" Policy, was declared in early 1985, has met with a good response among some of those previously unemployed in towns, and is designed in particular to reduce dependence on food imports from South Africa. As regards section 10(1)(u) of the same Act, the Government stated that it was used particularly after a cyclone in 1984, i.e. a case of natural calamity under Article 2, paragraph (2)(d), of the Convention, but that recourse to this provision has since dropped off.

The Committee took note of these indications. It pointed out, however, that the present wording of section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act is not limited to the exceptions regarding minor communal services and emergency work, as defined in Article 2, paragraph (2)(e) and (d), of the Convention. As the Committee explained in paragraph 37 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, the scope of Article 2, paragraph (2)(e), is limited by three criteria:

- the services must be "minor services", i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work and - in exceptional cases - to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself (a small school, a medical consultation and treatment room, etc.);

- the services must be "communal services" performed "in the direct interest of the community", and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and

- the "members of the community" (i.e. the community which has to perform the services) or their "direct" representatives (e.g. the village council) must "have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services".

None of these limitations is embodied in section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Act, since the level and magnitude of the services imposed are not limited; orders under section 10(l) may be issued at the national level by the King in Council and enforced against the opposition of the area chief (section 12), and consultation of the local community or its representatives is not required. Similarly, neither section 10(1)(q) nor (u) are limited in scope to emergency work required in circumstances that would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.

As regards actual practice, the Committee noted from the Government's report that section 10(1)(q), although formally limited to anti-erosion work has been used since 1985 to transfer persons previously unemployed in towns to agricultural work with a view to reducing dependence on food imports. Referring also to the explanations in point 1 above, the Committee must point out that compulsory labour for such purposes is not compatible with the Convention.

Having regard to the Government's assurances that its policy has met with a good response from those concerned, the Committee trusts that the Government will henceforth rely on free labour for agricultural production as well as for the building, maintenance and protection of roads benefiting a wider group than a local community, and that section 10(1)(q) and (u) of the Swaziland Administration Act will be amended, as announced by the Government in 1982, so as to ensure observance of the Convention. In this connection the Committee noted with interest the Government's statement that steps are being taken to insert consultation requirements as in section 144(4) of the Employment Act into the Swaziland Administration Act, and hopes that the requirements of Article 2, paragraph (2)(e), of the Convention regarding the minor importance of the work and its local purview will likewise be embodied.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to this effect and also to supply details on the manner in which the "EKHAYA" Policy is being implemented, indicating the number of people involved, their home towns or areas and places of affectation, and their rights and duties.