Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Written information provided by the Government

Information provided on 20 May 2021

The Government of Zimbabwe wishes to report on new developments relating to matters raised by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Recommendations and Convention (CEACR) under Convention No. 105 that it ratified in 1998. The new developments also relate to the Freedom of Association and the Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that the CEACR cited in its comments under Convention No. 105. Following the promulgation of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA) in November 2019, that replaced the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), the Government is to work with the social partners within the realm of the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF) to strengthen the interface between the law enforcement agencies and the trade unionists. This will be pursued to ensure that the law enforcement agencies throughout the country fully understand, appreciate and apply the provisions of section 9 of MOPA. Section 9 of MOPA explicitly exempts meetings held by a registered trade union for bona fide trade union purposes for the conduct of business in accordance with the Labour Act (Chapter 28.01), from the requirements stipulated under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the same Act. The planning and execution of new activities involving law enforcement agencies and trade union activities have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Even the direct contacts mission that was accepted by the GoZ and scheduled to take place in 2020 had to be put on hold due to the pandemic. However, during a meeting organized jointly by ILO Harare Office and the Pretoria Regional Decent Work Team held on 11 March 2021, the leaders from Government, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) and the Employers Confederation of Zimbabwe (EMCOZ) agreed to prioritize activities to strengthen the engagement of law enforcement agencies and trade unionists. Subsequent to the meeting, the ILO officials held separate consultations with officials from Government, ZCTU and EMCOZ with a view to planning the activities around trade unions in the context of MOPA, among others. One such activity identified is the review of the implementation of the Code of Conduct for the State Actors in the World of Work and the National Handbook on Freedom of Association and Civil Liberties in the World of Work.

The Government also wishes to report that the twenty (20) ZCTU members who were arrested for participating in the October 2018 strike and cited in the report of the CEACR on Convention No. 105 were acquitted by the court on 12 November 2020. Furthermore, the GoZ wishes to report that during the 44th session of the Human Rights Council (June to July 2020) it responded to and corrected the unfortunate impression about the thrust of the then Maintenance of Peace and Order (MOPO) Bill (now MOPA) which had been created by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association that is also cited by the CEACR.

On labour law reform, the Government wishes to report that the Labour Amendment Bill is currently before Cabinet. The Bill seeks among other things to repeal sections 102(b), 104(2)–(3), 109(1)–(2) and 122 of the Labour Act (Chapter 28.01) in line with the comments made by the CEACR. The Health Service Act is also set to be amended. Consultations around its review commenced in 2019 but they have been affected by the lockdowns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Last but not the least, the Constitutional Amendment Bill passed on 4 May 2021 paves the way for the stakeholder consultations around the amendment of the Public Service Act so as to harmonize it with the Labour Act. The Bill will be considered by the TNF before being tabled for consideration by Cabinet in due course. Previously, the Government submitted that the review of the Public Service Act was awaiting some constitutional amendments.

Additional information provided on 4 June 2021

The CEACR alleges that the Zimbabwe Prisons Act and the Prison (General) regulations are not in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention. The committee further argues that penalties of imprisonment including compulsory labour under the Prison Act and its regulations may be imposed under circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, in the Public Order and Security Act and Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Cap. 9:23).

There is no forced labour in Zimbabwe in general and in the prisons. The Prison Act and regulations are in sync with the Constitution as well as international and regional best practices. These are not in violation of Article 1(a) of the said Convention. The sentencing of prisoners to labour was outlawed in Zimbabwe’s jurisdiction.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare – It is an historic session as we are conducting the Committee’s business online for the first time. I have no doubt that your collective experience will ensure that the business is conducted smoothly, and that your conclusions to each of the cases will be fair. My delegation therefore looks forward to a focused discussion and to a fair conclusion that takes into account the terms of listing the submissions as well as objective and constructive interventions by members that take part in this discussion. It is important to note that the credibility of the supervisory machinery rests on fair conclusions. Predetermined and misdirected conclusions are a danger to the mechanism which is at the heart of the ILO. We would like conclusions that are embraced by the examined governments for their soundness, fairness and veracity. It is self-defeating to hear of conclusions that may be ridiculed. With your permission let me say a few words about the criteria used in coming up with this list of 19. My delegation believes that the listing criteria, together with fair discussions and fair proposals, speak to the credibility of this august Committee.

At this session, three countries from Southern Africa, one of the five subregions of Africa, are lined up for discussion. One would want to question the criteria used to list three countries from the same subregion, albeit under different Conventions. My delegation is of the view that the geographical spread criterion was not applied within Africa as a region. Furthermore, the three cannot be regarded as cases of serious violations nor situations that require urgent attention.

The three were not the only countries provisionally listed under fundamental and priority Conventions. The final list lacked a balance between developing and developed countries. I can go on and on citing and analysing all the remaining criteria listed in document CAN/D.1, dated 13 May 2021. The final list lacks a balance of the criteria. One would have expected at most one country from Southern Africa to be discussed in this session of the International Labour Conference, especially with the final list of 19 countries instead of 24.

Secondly, the parties responsible for listing need to pay full attention to the reforms of the working methods of this Committee that we agreed to in 2015. Zimbabwe is not against the mechanism, but it is after objectivity and transparency. These are the pillars of a credible mechanism. Collectively we should strengthen the mechanism for each to remain relevant.

Let me turn to the issues raised by the Committee of Experts concerning Zimbabwe under the Convention. I wish to start by pointing out that there is no forced labour in Zimbabwe, be it in prisons, workplaces or society at large.

The Committee of Experts has never established that there is forced labour in the prisons of Zimbabwe. The rehabilitative labour of the prison system in Zimbabwe is consistent with the Constitution and international and regional best practices. Offenders are sentenced to imprisonment under the presumption that the term of imprisonment is adequate punishment. The Committee of Experts argues that penalties of imprisonment, including compulsory labour under the Prisons Act and its regulations, may be imposed under circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention in the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. I wish to point out that the POSA was repealed in 2019. I will come back to it later on. Furthermore, I wish to submit that the proposition being advanced by the Committee of Experts is unfortunately based on the submission made by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) within the realm of freedom of association and the present system. The Committee of Experts cites unfounded fears expressed by the ZCTU that 20 of its members who were arrested in 2018 were to face forced labour in prison if they were convicted.

The sentencing of prisoners to labour was outlawed in Zimbabwe’s jurisdiction. Imprisonment for violating a provision cannot be interpreted to mean forced labour. Such an imprisonment is in fact a criminal punishment that is in sync with the criminal justice system. At any rate, the members who are feared to be subjected to that, to what the Committee of Experts terms “forced labour”, were acquitted by the courts in 2019, before it produced the report which is the subject of this discussion.

In its report, the Committee of Experts also made reference to the repealed POSA and its successor, the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA). That was gazetted in November 2019. Unfortunately, the bulk of what is in the report of the Committee of Experts is an analysis of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill, which is now an act, which was submitted to it by the ZCTU. Furthermore, the Committee of Experts cites in its report the comments on the Bill made in September 2019 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Ironically, in the same report the Committee of Experts acknowledges the statement by the Government that the POSA was replaced by the MOPA. One wonders about the logic of the Committee of Experts in proceeding to analyse a bill when an act was, or is, already in place. Alternatively, why should it include an analysis of a bill in its supplementary report in which it is making reference to an act.

It is given that the Committee of Experts is still to analyse the MOPA. Hence it becomes an academic exercise for us to dwell on provisions that were in a bill. However, let me point out that section 9 of the MOPA explicitly exempts meetings convened by registered unions for bona fide trade union purposes for the conduct of business, in accordance with the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], from the requirements stipulated under sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the same Act which include notifying police about public gatherings being planned.

Last but not least, the Committee of Experts was informed some time ago about the agenda to remove from the Labour Act reference to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in an illegal strike. This has been done so that the Labour Act is in conformity with the Convention, and more importantly for it to be in sync with the criminal justice system.

Sections 102(b), 104(2) and (3), 109(1) and (2), and 122 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] will be repealed. The Committee of Experts acknowledges this aspect and also the totality of the labour law reform. However, it regrets the lack of progress. Let me point out that the labour reform has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the pandemic, the amended labour bill is now before the Cabinet.

Worker members – We are examining the Government of Zimbabwe’s application of Convention No. 105. Over many years, our Committee has examined Zimbabwe’s application of one Convention or another or its failure to comply with reporting obligations. This is the 14th such examination. This is the first time we have examined the application of this Convention with respect to Zimbabwe, but the issues are certainly not new – many of them have been raised over the 13 examinations of individual cases.

Workers in Zimbabwe still face penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for having participated in strikes. This is in spite of the five observations and ten direct requests of the Committee of Experts.

In the 2009 Commission of Inquiry report, a number of concerns were raised about provisions in the then POSA, the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the Labour Act, which were applied in a manner that limited the civil liberties and fundamental labour rights of the workers of Zimbabwe, exacting heavy fines and long-term prison terms with compulsory labour for any infringement.

We deplore the fact that the Government has failed to fully implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations in law and in practice and has sought to criminalize the exercise of civil liberties with the threat of exorbitant fines and long-term imprisonment to deny workers their rights.

In January 2019, the President and Secretary-General of the ZCTU, Peter Mutasa and Japhet Moyo, were arrested following a ZCTU protest action against unjustified increases in petrol prices and general economic hardships. They were both charged for “subverting constitutional government” under section 22 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act which made them liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years without the option of a fine. Section 76(1) of the Prisons Act and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations make compulsory prison labour, in practice, the norm for all prisoners.

On 18 December 2020, a gender officer of the Amalgamated Rural Teachers Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ) was arrested and convicted, under section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, after a trade union protest action against the erosion of teachers’ salaries by the Government. She was jailed for 16 months and underwent compulsory prison labour until she was granted bail.

In practice, nothing has changed with regard to the MOPA. We recall that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, after his visit to Zimbabwe in September 2019, stated as much. We point to the example of notification to hold public gatherings. In sections 25 to 27 of the POSA, failure to notify the authorities of the intention to hold public gatherings and violations of the prohibition of public gatherings or public demonstrations was sanctioned with imprisonment of up to six months. Now under sections 7(5) and 8(11) of the MOPA, a similar offence will earn you one year in prison, and compulsory labour is guaranteed by virtue of the Prisons Act.

Further, let us consider the provisions of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. This law accords excessively harsh prison penalties for acts covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention. Section 31 of the Act creates and sanctions the offence of “publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State” with imprisonment of up to 20 years. Section 33 accords the penalty of imprisonment of up to one year for “undermining authority of or insulting President”. Section 37 of the Act sanctions “participating in gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of the peace or bigotry” with imprisonment of up to five years. Section 41 accords the penalty of imprisonment of up to six months for “disorderly conduct in public place”. These provisions were clearly mentioned in the Commission of Inquiry report as legislation that must not be used to undermine the exercise of civil liberties and trade union rights. However, these criminal provisions, together with their prison terms and compulsory prison labour, are used to drag trade union leaders and workers seeking to exercise their civil liberties and fundamental rights through the criminal justice system. The associated judicial harassment and pre-trial detention is to stop them from expressing views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, contrary to the Convention.

We emphasize that these laws and regulations have a profound impact on the trade union movement in Zimbabwe. We note that 20 members of the ZCTU faced criminal charges under section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act for having participated in a public protest organized by the ZCTU in October 2018. There are many more cases, which my colleagues from the Workers’ group will elaborate upon.

Now, we would like to discuss laws that allow for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as punishment for having participated in strikes. Sections 102, 104, 109 and 112 of the Labour Act contradict Article 1(d) of the Convention. These provisions allow workers engaged in peaceful collective action to be punished with excessive penalties, including lengthy periods of imprisonment, deregistration of trade unions and dismissal of employees involved in collective job action. The Committee of Experts has been calling on the Government to repeal these provisions since 2002. The provisions remain the same.

Violations of the Convention where arrests, criminal charges, imprisonment and compulsory labour are imposed as punishment for the expression of views critical of the Government or for having participated in strikes or public protests continue in Zimbabwe. The interrelationship between the two fundamental Conventions, Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 105, is in this case clear for all to see. The Government is using the criminalization of civil liberties and freedom of association, imprisonment and compulsory prison labour in violation of Convention No. 105 to further violate Convention No. 87 and disregard the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government has failed to bring its laws and practices into line with the Convention despite numerous opportunities to do so and ILO technical assistance to comply with these obligations.

Employer members – At the outset, the Employer members would like to remind all the ILO Member States of the importance of respecting the eight ILO fundamental Conventions, which includes Convention No. 105. This fundamental Convention prohibits forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or punishment for holding or expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

Such forms of forced labour seriously undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly and association.

Zimbabwe ratified the Convention in 1998. The Committee of Experts has issued observations in respect of the Government of Zimbabwe’s application of this Convention five times since 2010. We note, however, that this is the first time that the Committee has discussed this case. The Employer members would like to thank the Government for the information provided here today on the developments of the legislative reforms and the written information submitted for this case.

We are pleased to hear that the 20 members of the ZCTU who were arrested for participating in the October 2018 strike have since been acquitted by a court in November 2020.

We also thank the Government for its report of 2019 and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session in June 2020.

This case relates to the Government’s forceful response to the nationwide protests sparked by the worsening economic conditions in the country. Reports indicated that many civil society activists, political opposition leaders and other critics of the Government were arbitrarily arrested, abducted, beaten and tortured. Some reports have also indicated that the Government used excessive, disproportionate and lethal force against protestors, through the use of teargas, batons and live ammunition. We are deeply concerned as employers at these allegations of human rights violations.

Turning now to the two main issues that have been observed by the Committee of Experts. The first issue is penal sanctions involving compulsory labour imposed as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political or socio-economic system.

The Committee of Experts identified penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour in a number of provisions of national legislation, namely the POSA and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. In particular, these provisions aim to punish those who engage in publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State, undermine authority or participate in meetings or gatherings with the intention of disturbing peace, security or public order.

The Committee of Experts noted that the new Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill had been introduced to replace the POSA, but noted with concern that the new Bill potentially violates international human rights norms and standards. Under the Bill, the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly is not fully guaranteed as law enforcement agencies are still given broad regulatory discretion and powers.

We note that Article 1(a) of the Convention expressly prohibits any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. This is important not only for the recognition of the freedom to express political or ideological views, but also for other rights, such as the right of association and of assembly which citizens should be able to enjoy free from political coercion.

We agree with the Committee of Experts in its urging of the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 31, 33, 37 and 41 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and sections 7(5) and 8(11) of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill are repealed and amended to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

We trust that the Government will repeal these laws in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations through the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF) and provide up-to-date information to the Committee of Experts on the application of these provisions in law and in practice, including those people who have been arrested under these laws.

The second issue observed by the Committee of Experts relates to penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee of Experts noted in its earlier comments that several provisions of the Labour Act punish persons with compulsory prison labour for engaging in an unlawful collective action. Such provisions are directly incompatible with Article 1(d) of the Convention, which prohibits any form of forced or compulsory labour imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

We highlight that the Committee of Experts noted with deep regret the lack of progress made by the Government on the labour reforms and the lack of information provided in this regard. We take note from the written information provided by the Government, and also the statement made by the Government, that a labour amendment bill is currently before Cabinet to repeal the provisions of concern in line with the comments made by the Committee of Experts.

We understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed this progress, but we trust that the Government will continue its efforts to make progress on these reforms in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ representatives through the TNF.

We echo the Committee of Experts’ strong urging of the Government to ensure that the provisions of the Labour Act are amended so that no sanctions of imprisonment may be imposed for organizing or peacefully participating in strikes in conformity with Article 1(d) of the Convention.

We also call on the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with information on the progress made on these law reforms and the application of these provisions in law and in practice.

Worker member, Zimbabwe – My country is here again, before this Committee, for the 14th time. The continuous appearance of my country before this Committee tells us a big story about the strength of its commitment to its obligations.

As already stated by the Worker members, and in accordance with the findings of the Committee of Experts on this matter, my country’s criminal laws and labour laws remain an impediment to the enjoyment of our rights under this Convention. The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act; the MOPA, which replaced the POSA; the Labour Act and the Prisons Act have provisions that trample on our rights as workers and as citizens in the broader sense. The Constitution guarantees the freedom to demonstrate and petition as well as political rights.

Let me demonstrate how the said laws continue to infringe our rights. I will start with the case of Sheila Chisirimunhu, of ARTUZ. She was arrested and charged under section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act with ‘‘participating in gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of the peace or bigotry’’. She was convicted on 18 December 2020 by a magistrates’ court after a trade union protest action against the erosion of teachers’ salaries. She was jailed for 16 months. She endured forced labour in prison for 18 days at Mutimurefu prison and was released on 5 January 2021 following an appeal in the High Court. If this appeal is dismissed, she will go back to prison to perform forced labour.

On 31 July 2020, civil society organizations called for a protest action against economic hardships. The protest was banned, and the military and police were deployed and ordered people to stay indoors. Scores of people who came out to protest were arrested for participating in the protest action. Those arrested include prominent author Tsistsi Dangarebga and journalist Hopewell Chin’ono, who later got another charge of communicating falsehoods prejudicial to the State. They endured time in prison that varied from 7 days to 50 days, with bail being denied by the lower courts. Their cases are still pending and, if convicted, these people will be subjected to forced labour.

In June 2020, nurses on the front lines contributing to the fight against COVID-19 protested against poor wages and a lack of personal protective equipment. They had their leaders arrested and prosecuted under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

In February 2020, a ZCTU labour forum in the city of Mutare was banned by the Zimbabwe Republic Police under the MOPA for providing insufficient notice, despite the exemption provided in law.

In January 2019, Japhet Moyo, the Secretary-General of the ZCTU, Masaraure of ARTUZ and I were arrested following a ZCTU protest action against unjustified increases in petrol prices and economic hardships. After two years of court appearances, the charges were then withdrawn before plea. The State can still resume this matter and, if we are convicted, we will go to jail for 20 years without the option of a fine and be subjected to forced labour. Again, on 19 December 2019 ARTUZ members on a salary march were arrested and charged with criminal nuisance. A court discharged them.

With regard to the Labour Act, the provisions identified by the Committee of Experts remain unchanged. The right to strike, though recognized in section 65 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, is very difficult to exercise in practice because of complicated procedures. A good example is a Labour Court judgment in the case of the Zimbabwe Banks and Allied Workers Union (ZIBAWU) v. People’s Own Savings Bank (POSB) in which the court declared the strike illegal for failing to comply with section 104, which the Committee of Experts identified as problematic. Labour law reforms remain stalled with Government producing drafts that ignore some of the comments of the Committee of Experts. When we complain we are accused of delaying the process.

The International Labour Conference resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted in 1970, is very clear on these issues. It provides that the absence of these civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights.

Let me end by urging the Committee to consider that we have now witnessed the Government disrespecting the Committee of Experts’ comments on freedom of association and civil liberties, which are interlinked with the Convention, for 19 years, and snubbing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry for 11 years. Follow-up missions and technical assistance have been provided by the Office, but here we are, with our empty hands. A special paragraph is an appropriate conclusion on this matter.

Government member, Portugal – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The Candidate Countries, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights and the abolition of forced and compulsory labour.

We support the indispensable role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising the application of international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions in particular, in law and in practice.

We welcome Zimbabwe’s efforts to increase the protection of labour rights and eliminate child and forced labour. We strongly encourage further stepping up of these efforts, including on improving the effectiveness of tripartite social dialogue and the functioning of the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF). We will continue to closely monitor these developments, not in the least in the context of ongoing negotiations aiming at deepening the existing Economic Partnership Agreement, where special attention is paid to freedom of association and collective bargaining, non-discrimination and forced labour and child labour.

Regarding Convention No. 105, we note with deep regret the Committee’s observations on penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in Zimbabwe. According to the Committee of Experts, under various provisions of national legislation, such as the earlier Public Order Security Act (POSA), the current Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA) and the Criminal Law Code, penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour and forced labour are being used to ban trade union protests and criminalize peaceful expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

Moreover, the provisions of the Labour Act continue to enable the imprisonment, with compulsory prison labour, of trade union activists engaged in organizing or peacefully participating in strikes.

In line with the Committee of Experts’ recommendation, the EU and its Member States strongly urge the Government of Zimbabwe to take the necessary measures to ensure that legislation, such as sections 31, 33, 37 and 41 of the Criminal Law Code, sections 7(5) and 8(11) of the MOPA and certain provisions of the Labour Act, are repealed or amended in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

With reference to the related Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), we commend the Government for having ratified the Protocol of 2014 in 2019. In line with the second Trafficking in Persons National Plan of Action (NAPLAC 2019–21), we call on the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective implementation of the Trafficking in Persons Act and to provide information on the convictions and penalties applied, both for cases of sexual and labour exploitation.

The EU and its Member States will continue to support the Government of Zimbabwe in its endeavours to respect all Conventions it has ratified, including, in particular, the fundamental labour Conventions, both in law and in practice.

Interpretation from German: Worker member, Germany – I am speaking on behalf of the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB) and the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV). The Government of Zimbabwe persistently ignores the findings of the ILO monitoring bodies. Where problematic regulations are supposedly being changed, they are being reintroduced elsewhere or expanded with more drastic provisions. This is what is happening with the Patriotic Bill, which seeks to criminalize activities that go against the national interest. Such a law is a blanket authorization for the criminalization of any view that the State dislikes, and the case is exactly the same when it comes to replacing the POSA with the now enacted MOPA. This MOPA continues to contain sweeping restrictions on freedom of association, a fundamental civil liberty at the core of union activity.

Completely out of proportion is the law’s provision to punish violations of the MOPA with imprisonment of up to one year, which is also linked to forced labour through the provisions in the Labour Act. An analysis of the POSA and the MOPA also shows that the period for giving notice was increased from four days under the POSA to five days’ notice in the case of public meetings and seven days in the case of demonstrations and processions, and the penalties were also increased from six months’ imprisonment to one year. Even a mere failure to notify the authorities of a postponement or cancelled meeting attracts the same sanction.

Although certain provisions of the MOPA exempt unions from the notification requirement, this section is ignored in practice. In February 2020, the police banned a ZCTU labour forum in Mutare and threatened to arrest participants if they gathered, despite the notice from the ZCTU. How can union members freely exercise their rights when repressive laws put them at risk of being punished with imprisonment and forced labour just for the actions they are taking. “Worse than hell” is how the reality in Zimbabwe’s prisons is described. We therefore call on the Government of Zimbabwe to finally adjust the regulations of the MOPA, the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the Labour Act, and the application of these laws in practice in a way that it is in line with the Convention.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – The Russian Federation shares the assessment given by Zimbabwe with reference to its implementation of the Convention. The accusations levelled at Zimbabwe are accusations that we consider to be groundless when it comes to the use of forced labour within the framework of the national penitentiary system. Our basic premise is that punishment by way of corrective work under the country’s Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act bears no relation whatsoever to the shameful practice of forced labour.

Further, the legislation in question is fully in line with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and with regional and international legal standards. We hope, then, that the Committee will reach a favourable conclusion with reference to the detailed report presented today and with reference to all the information submitted to the Committee by our Zimbabwean colleagues, and will thus conclude its consideration of the issue.

Generally speaking, we think it is unacceptable to use the platform of the ILO in a way that attempts to link thematic and country reports with the internal events that take place in a particular country. Such a practice leads to acute politicization of materials and to decisions being taken that, in fact, cannot be implemented by the respective capitals. We will therefore call upon the ILO and its Committees to refrain from partial and confrontational behaviour and rather to focus on constructive, mutually respectful cooperation, focusing on finding common solutions to our common problems relating to the concept of decent work and improving the instruments that we have available to protect the interests of both workers and employers.

Worker member, Canada – I am speaking on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress. By virtue of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the MOPA, forced labour may be imposed as a penal sanction for the expression of political views. This includes placing restrictions on participating in public gatherings, demonstrations or meetings. While this, in itself, is in contravention of the Convention, it is important to also note that this threat of forced labour is moreover being used as a means to discourage trade union organizing and activities, and is undermining freedom of association in Zimbabwe.

Following their participation in a 2018 protest action, criminal charges were brought against 20 members of the ZCTU. After enduring two years of trial where, if convicted, they may have been subject to forced labour, they were finally acquitted in November 2020. In another instance, on 6 June 2020, security forces disrupted a nurses’ strike and arrested and then judicially persecuted 12 strike leaders. These nurses were striking for an improvement in their wages and working conditions, and for adequate personal protective equipment. These 12 individuals have since been acquitted by a magistrates’ court, but without a strong legal team they may have easily found themselves subjected to imprisonment and forced labour.

It is increasingly clear that the penal sanction of forced labour is a key tactic used by the Government to dissuade workers from organizing and is undermining the right to freedom of association in Zimbabwe.

As such, we support the Committee of Experts’ recommendation that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that sections of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the MOPA are repealed or amended in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Egypt – We have taken due note of the measures undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe in seeking to implement the Convention. We have also noted, with satisfaction, all of the efforts that have been made by the Government of Zimbabwe in seeking to bring its national and domestic legislation into line with international labour standards, especially when it comes to laws governing the penitentiary system.

We heard the Government of Zimbabwe state that the penitentiary system in Zimbabwe was a system that had nothing whatsoever to do with forced labour. We also heard it stated that the POSA was going to be repealed and that there would be new legislation on the maintenance of good order and peace in the country that would then be introduced.

We wish to congratulate the Government on all of these positive steps intended to bring domestic legislation into line with international labour standards and other instruments. We would encourage the Government to continue to pursue dialogue with the social partners, especially through the TNF.

This should also allow them to work in consultation with trade unions as well as the forces of law and order. We have noted that the Government intends to revise the Labour Act, as well as the National Handbook on Freedom of Association and Civil Liberties in the World of Work. All of this will be done again in consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Worker member, South Africa – I am speaking on behalf of the Southern Africa Trade Union Coordination Council (SATUCC). We note that for the past two decades, the Government of Zimbabwe has used both violence and the law to restrict the ability of their citizens to express political views or views opposed to the political, social and economic order, resulting in sanctions involving compulsory labour. Such restrictive measures have seen trade union leaders and their members arrested for exercising their rights.

The restrictive measures have even been broadened to cover even ordinary citizens posting messages on Twitter, Facebook or WhatsApp about the economic and government ills and mishap. Citizens face arrest, abduction, intimidation and threats, among others. By speaking against government policies that negatively affect the welfare of workers and citizens at large, some civil society organizations and the ZCTU have been labelled terrorist organizations.

The right to demonstrate, which is enshrined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, is not available in practice. On 1 August 2018 in Harare, citizens who were protesting at delayed election results were shot, and six killed, for expressing their political views. The Motlanthe Commission of Inquiry that investigated the incident noted the excessive use of force by the security forces and made recommendations that are still to be fully implemented. The families that lost family members due to the shooting are still to be compensated, and the security forces that shot them are still to be prosecuted. During the January 2019 protest actions, ZCTU leaders were arrested and charged with subversion. They face a 20-year jail sentence. If convicted, they will be subjected to forced labour.

The inability to express political views or views opposed to the political, social and economic order has impacted the region through immigration.

Government member, India – India thanks the Government of Zimbabwe for providing the latest update on the issues under consideration. India appreciates the commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe to fulfilling its international labour obligations, including those related to the Convention, and to progressing the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the ILO, and its willingness to constructively work with it.

We take positive note of the efforts made by the Government of Zimbabwe in carrying forward the labour reforms, despite the difficulties caused by the current pandemic situation. We also look forward to the completion of the labour reform process as soon as the pandemic situation normalizes.

We welcome the enactment of the progress and maintenance of the MOPA that replaced the previous POSA of 2019 and duly incorporates provisions for the convening of meetings by the registered trade unions in accordance with the Labour Act of Zimbabwe.

We request the ILO and its constituents to fully support the Government of Zimbabwe and provide all necessary technical assistance that it may seek in fulfilling its labour-related obligations. We take this opportunity to wish the Government of Zimbabwe all success in its endeavours.

Interpretation from Chinese: Government member, China – We would like to thank the representative of Zimbabwe for the statement he read, the Committee of Experts for its report and the Government of Zimbabwe for its submission of written materials.

We note that, since the promulgation of the MOPA, the Government has adopted various measures to strengthen cooperation with the social partners within the framework of the TNF. This greatly facilitates communication between the law enforcement agencies and trade unionists.

The national law enforcement agencies have a full grasp of, and implement seriously, section 9 of the Act, which provides for the safeguarding of lawful activities by registered trade unions. We would like to commend this.

Although gravely affected by COVID-19, the Government of Zimbabwe has overcome all kinds of difficulties to make important progress on labour law reform, which is being amended currently, following the Committee of Experts’ recommendation. After adopting, in May of this year, the Constitutional amendment, the Public Service Act is also set to be amended so as to play a greater role once harmonized with the Labour Act.

We would like to remind the Committee to attach great importance to the following information provided by the Government. Zimbabwe’s judicial system does not permit forced labour, and its Prisons Act and Prisons (General) Regulations are in conformity with both the Constitution and international or regional customs. We believe that, in the process of this review, the progress made by the Government of Zimbabwe on the Convention should be fully acknowledged. We hope that the ILO will continue its dialogue with Zimbabwe and provide them with the necessary support in regard of the Convention’s application to further promote the concrete implementation of the Convention.

Government member, Cuba – The Government of Zimbabwe has indicated that its penal regulations bear no relation with forced labour and are based on the Constitution of the country, as well as on regional and international good practices. It has also indicated that amendments have been made to the legislation and that processes of labour legislation reform are being carried out, which have been affected by the COVID‑19 pandemic. However, the Government has indicated its willingness to continue in that direction. In that light, my delegation considers that dialogue, cooperation and technical assistance can provide support for the Government of Zimbabwe.

Government member, Ethiopia – My delegation has listened carefully to the statement delivered by the Minister of Zimbabwe. We have noted from the information provided by the Government that, first, its prison system is not associated with forced labour; second, the POSA was repealed and replaced by the MOPA in conjunction with the Convention; and third, there is progress in the reforming of their labour laws. These measures, in our view, are positive steps towards the full application of the Convention in law and in practice.

That said, we are of the view that the economic and social circumstances of certain countries may not be adaptable to the ILO supervisory system, which justifies complexity and the need for flexibility to take into account national realities.

The efforts undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe in the advancement of the application of the Convention at hand is encouraging. We would like therefore to encourage the ILO to provide technical assistance to complement the Government’s efforts to strengthen the labour inspectorate system in the country and ensure the full application of the Convention. Finally, we hope the Committee in its conclusions will take into consideration the efforts taken by the Government.

Government member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – The United Kingdom supports the role of the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising the application of international labour standards and fundamental Conventions. We are committed to the promotion, protection and respect of human and labour rights and safeguarding by the fundamental ILO Conventions. The Government of the United Kingdom is also committed to the eradication of all forms of modern slavery, forced labour and human trafficking as set out in the Sustainable Development Goals.

Zimbabwe is one of the United Kingdom’s top 30 human rights priority countries, and we are seriously concerned about the arrests of prominent opposition and civil society figureheads. We have been clear that the Government of Zimbabwe must meet its international and domestic obligations by respecting the rule of law, safeguarding human rights and committing to genuine political and economic reform for the benefit of all Zimbabweans.

We recall that the need to ensure public order and security should not be used as an argument to limit the rights of trade unions and ban protest actions. In this context, we welcome the Government of Zimbabwe’s efforts to roll back key repressive Mugabe-era legislation, including the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the POSA, and bringing these in line with the Constitution. We note with interest that the POSA stipulates that the Government will work with the social partners through the TNF and encourage Zimbabwe to build on this step to institutionalize tripartite dialogue.

We note progress in bringing the labour and public service legislation into conformity with the Convention. We call on the Government to amend the Labour Act and Public Service Act without delay and in full consultation with key stakeholders.

The United Kingdom continues to be on the side of the Zimbabwean people. We will readily engage with the Government of Zimbabwe and we hope we can work together on human rights.

Government member, Switzerland – Switzerland has taken note of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee of Experts. It calls on the Government of Zimbabwe without delay to bring its law and practice into conformity with the new Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe of 2013, and with the Convention.

The citizens and workers of Zimbabwe are at risk of compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in non-violent strikes and demonstrations. That is contrary to the Convention, the objective of which is the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour.

Switzerland calls on Zimbabwe to give effect to the reforms initiated a few years ago with a view to ensuring the conformity of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act with the Convention, in accordance with fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly and association.

Government member, Malawi – Malawi has taken note of the comments raised by the Committee of Experts in reference to Zimbabwe regarding the application of the Convention, as contained in the 2020 supplementary report of the Committee of Experts. At the same time, the Government of Malawi has taken note of the information provided by the Government of Zimbabwe regarding the implementation of the Convention.

Malawi notes that there is no forced labour in Zimbabwe, as stated by some delegates from Zimbabwe. Malawi applauds the positive steps taken by the Government of Zimbabwe in its legislative reforms to ensure that the country’s jurisdiction and laws are in line with the provisions of the Convention. In particular, the Government of Malawi notes with appreciation that the Labour Amendment Bill is currently with the Cabinet and is hopeful that Zimbabwe will ensure that it is duly adopted and implemented.

The Government of Malawi would like to encourage the social partners to continue to cooperate and provide their input to the ongoing process of reviewing the development of laws in Zimbabwe.

Government member, Ghana – Convention No. 105 and Convention No. 87 are two fundamental Conventions on the rights of workers that were ratified by Zimbabwe as far back as 1999 and 2003, respectively.

It is important for this Committee to acknowledge the effort of the Government of Zimbabwe in putting in place measures to ensure that their legal systems address the major requirements of the two Conventions. It is refreshing to know that the Government has gone further to initiate reforms towards the full provisional requirements of the two Conventions. We support the honest admission by the Government of Zimbabwe that COVID-19 has further delayed the implementation of the necessary reforms by the Government due to country restrictions.

The Government of Ghana supports any attempts to ensure mutual respect, social dialogue, the promotion of social justice and cooperation among the tripartite constituents in championing this cause. Ghana has rich experience in tripartism and social dialogue, and we look forward to the same for the Government of Zimbabwe, as well as the greater participation of trade unions in matters that affect workers as a way of deepening tripartism and social dialogue at the country level.

We urge the ILO Office to provide the Government of Zimbabwe with the necessary technical support in its quest to reform its laws, in compliance with the requirements of the Conventions. With the above in place, we are convinced that the Government of Zimbabwe will be in a position to adopt measures to align its laws and practice with the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Government member, Kenya – The Kenyan delegation thanks the representative of the Government of Zimbabwe for the detailed response to the issues raised by the Committee. Kenya takes note of the legislative reforms being undertaken to ensure conformity with the provisions of the Conventions, including the enactment of the MOPA and other proposed legislative amendments and reforms currently before the Cabinet. These measures represent important steps towards full compliance and should be encouraged. We urge the Government of Zimbabwe to expedite the process.

The Kenyan delegation further welcomes the Government’s commitment to fully consulting with the social partners in the process of implementing the legal and political reforms and calls on the social partners, particularly the workers, to take advantage of such initiatives to advance the workers’ concerns.

Finally, it is our view that this Committee in its conclusion should take note of the efforts undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe while continuing to monitor progress under the existing reporting mechanisms.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Algeria – The Algerian delegation fully supports the statement made by the Government of Zimbabwe, and we welcome the progress made in terms of implementing the Convention. This progress is documented in the additional information received. We take note of the legislative measures taken to ensure that the penitentiary system has no links with forced labour and that the system does not violate the physical and psychological integrity of persons who might be victims of this system. Furthermore, the Algerian delegation would like to encourage the implementation of strategies that will make it possible to guarantee that any work done or services rendered by prisoners occur in conditions which are akin to those governed by labour contracts, thus ensuring that there is a ban on the use of any kind of forced labour.

Finally, Algeria would like to lend its support to the Republic of Zimbabwe with respect to its new vision, which strives to update its labour legislation and ensure that there is consistency between practices in the criminal justice system and the penitentiary system and international human rights protection instruments and fundamental rights at work.

Government member, Namibia – Namibia takes this opportunity to join the discussion on the application of the Convention by the Government of Zimbabwe.

Namibia notes the Committee of Experts’ concerns that the ZCTU members who were arrested for having participated in a strike in 2018 could be subjected to forced labour, if convicted. We are reliably informed that those members of ZCTU were acquitted already, in 2019.

The world of work has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and this affected the work on the amendments to the Labour Act. Thus, we call upon the Committee to take note of the progress of the Labour Amendment Bill which is before the Cabinet and to allow the Zimbabwean Government to conclude the labour law reform process.

Government member, Botswana – We have carefully reflected on the statement presented by the representative of the Government of Zimbabwe. Clearly, the statement shows that the Government of Zimbabwe has addressed some of the concerns and issues raised in the report of the Committee of Experts and is continuing to address others. We therefore consider the enthusiasm and commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe to addressing the concerns raised by the Committee of Experts a step in the right direction. Most importantly, the Government of Zimbabwe has reported progress on the labour law reforms which will result in the repeal of the problematic sections of the Labour Act. Although the pace of the labour law reform has been adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is evident that the bill to this effect has been drafted and is ready for consideration by the Cabinet.

On the basis of the measures undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe thus far on this matter, we consider it appropriate for this Committee to note the progress made and to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to bring all the pending issues to a conclusion.

Government member, United Republic of Tanzania – My delegation thanks the delegation of Zimbabwe for its constructive engagement on the deliberations of the Committee. We welcome various efforts by the Government of Zimbabwe in fulfilling its obligations under the ILO Conventions, including the steps taken in labour law reforms despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We note with gratitude that the prison system of Zimbabwe is not associated with forced labour and congratulate the Government of Zimbabwe on the enactment of the MOPA, which has replaced the POSA, as well as the progress made by the Government in reforming the labour laws.

In conclusion, we would like to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to continue engaging with the social partners in fulfilling its international obligations, and we request the ILO to provide the necessary support to the Government of Zimbabwe in addressing challenges in the labour reforms and the implementation of the international labour Conventions.

Government member, Angola – Angola would like to congratulate the Zimbabwean delegation for the presentation of the report, as well as for its willingness to continue to collaborate with the mechanisms of this Organization regarding the application of Conventions and Recommendations.

The Government of Zimbabwe is once again asked to present to this Committee the developments made regarding the recommendations issued during the last session of the Committee of Experts regarding the Convention. It appears that certain changes in labour legislation have been requested. We acknowledge that the process of legislative amendment and modifications takes time. Therefore, we commend the Government of Zimbabwe on the progress made in response to the recommendations issued by revoking the POSA and relacing it with the MOPA.

Bearing in mind the progress made, the Angolan delegation encourages the Government of Zimbabwe to continue with the process of legislative reforms under way in order to improve its labour legislation and bring it into line with the ILO standards in force.

Worker member, Democratic Republic of the Congo – Everywhere, and on each occasion that forced labour is practised, and particularly when it is used as a tool for repressing and silencing dissidence, democracy, freedom and justice are endangered. And, specifically in the case of Zimbabwe, which is under examination for failure to comply with the Convention, the workers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo remind the Government that Article 2 of the Convention requires States that have ratified it to secure the immediate and complete abolition of forced labour.

The workers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo note that Zimbabwe has established a process of dialogue to deal with the issue of forced labour. However, when even the Government knowingly has recourse to forced labour for production and the suppression of rights, the real purpose behind this process invites suspicion.

Moreover, the process established seems to us to be inadequate, as the victims of this practice will continue to suffer atrocities during the process, which is still long. While awaiting the outcome of the process, the workers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo urge Zimbabwe and other countries that have been questioned on this issue to adopt transitional measures or an immediate moratorium in order to attenuate the negative effects of this practice on victims, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention.

We urge Zimbabwe to launch a true broad-based process of collaboration to rid the country of forced labour.

Government representative – Allow me to thank all delegates who have contributed to the discussion concerning my country. However, I wish to give particular and sincere thanks to those speakers who took note of the present system in Zimbabwe and commended the legislative agenda that we have embarked upon.

The Government of Zimbabwe also took note of the various constructive ideas that were flagged during the discussion. Indeed, the whole purpose of the discussion and discussing individual countries is to help them to improve where necessary. However, there were some unfortunate interventions that defied the logic of the engagement. They were not in good faith. They might, of course, have been driven by political motivations. I want to inform this Committee that Zimbabwe is not being discussed under Convention No. 87; yes, it was discussed several times under Convention No. 87, but this does not mean we continue to discuss all issues as Zimbabwe is listed under Convention No. 105.

The comments by the Workers’ delegate of South Africa on behalf of SATUCC are unfortunate as, by and large, they are not in the context of the terms of this discussion. Earlier on, I indicated that it will not do for delegates to dwell on issues that do not form the basis of this discussion. It is not about the particular areas related to Convention No. 105 that need improvement. We should be focused. I raised this aspect in my opening statement with a view to reminding all of us about the need to adhere to the terms of listing and discussion.

It will not help us to dwell on issues that are not linked to Convention No. 105 on the abolition of forced labour. Forced labour is non-existent in Zimbabwe. My Government is serious and committed to achieving its set goals as a Member of the ILO and does not tolerate the derailment of its well-meaning national programmes by those who are bent on furthering political goals or supporting the wrong causes in my country.

We should shun negativity and refrain from scoring cheap political goals. Playing to the international gallery is not the solution. If there are genuine issues which the ZCTU believes ought to be looked into, or to be revisited, surely they should bring them to the TNF. The TNF is our collective forum that exists to recommend to government action to be taken on socio-economic issues affecting the country, and the workers in particular. And what ought to be done to advance the Decent Work Agenda in our context? The ZCTU knows that the door to dialogue is always open, and we have collaborated well with them. Yet, they give presentations portraying a different picture in international meetings. This is unfortunate, and retrogressive. They cannot be allowed to abuse the ILO structures to play political games. The individuals in the various cases cited by the Workers’ delegation from Zimbabwe, including the nurses’ representatives and the amalgamated rural teachers’ representatives, were arrested for violating COVID-19 lockdown measures meant to contain and manage the pandemic. So that presentation was very unfortunate and misleading.

Let me also take the opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised during the debate. However, I will not respond to issues that are intrinsically predicated in the political domain. These are issues for another platform and another day. In my initial address to this august house, I did indicate that there is no forced labour in the prisons of Zimbabwe, which is the subject of the Convention. There is no forced labour in the prisons of Zimbabwe.

It will be misleading for the Committee of Experts to focus on things that are not there if we allow it to be preoccupied by suppositions. In my opening statement, I did point out that the Committee of Experts should not have engaged in the academic exercise of examining and providing us with comments on a view when the Act is already there. For the benefit of the Employer members, I want to repeat that the Committee of Experts did not analyse Zimbabwe’s new public order legislation, the MOPA. They analysed a bill when the Act was already in place. We are not talking of a bill, but a new act, which is now in force.

Unfortunately, some interventions present glaring evidence of motivated false moves and distort the positive realities on the ground in Zimbabwe. Presumptive definitions are even proffered, as amply illustrated by the speculation that had the 20 ZCTU members been convicted, they would have been subjected to forced labour. Why use these hypothetical suppositions? The people were not convicted, and where do we get this notion that they would have been forced, that they would have been subjected to forced labour? The motives that inspire such claims are at best obscure. We should therefore be worried about using the ILO as a machine to advance political agendas. The ILO stands for social justice in the world of work. Let us always be guided by these values.

The laws, other than the prison legislation system that the Committee of Experts dwelled on, largely do not feed into what happens in the prisons of Zimbabwe. It is not disputed that the Committee of Experts did not establish that forced labour exists in the prisons of Zimbabwe. Indeed, we acknowledged the need to repeal sections of the Labour Act that are not in line with our criminal justice system. We are proceeding to repeal them. That bill is in its final stages within the Cabinet, and will soon be going to the legislature.

Regarding the maintenance of public order, the Committee should appreciate that the Committee of Experts has not examined it in any context. My delegation suggests that the Committee of Experts should examine the Act with a caveat: it will not create unnecessary linkages with the Convention. This submission is premised on the fact that the Act in question addresses broader issues that fall under the purview of Convention No. 87, to which the Committee of Experts made reference in this report.

These broader issues were unfortunately raised in the discussion. Without getting into the political arena, I should want to inform this august house that my Government respects the freedom of association and expression on the part of all Zimbabweans, and indeed on the part of all workers, as under the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

Finally, my delegation looks forward to sharing conclusions. Conclusions are deemed to be fair if they relate to the terms of appearance and to positive elements that are flagged in the discussion.

Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank the Government of Zimbabwe for the useful information, especially on the developments in the law reforms. We are pleased to hear that those consultations have been undertaken by the Government with the social partners under the TNF. Nevertheless, once more the Employer members would like to recall the importance of respecting the ILO fundamental Conventions as well as the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and the freedom of association.

In light of the debate, the Employer members would like to recommend the Government to:

1. intensify its efforts to amend and repeal the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, at least the provisions that offend Article 1 of the Convention;

2. submit any information to the Committee of Experts in respect of its observations on the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill, which is now an act, as well as to amend or repeal those provisions of the Labour Act that conflict with Article 1(d), in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations through the TNF and to bring these legal instruments into conformity with the Convention;

3. ensure that no penalties involving forced labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political opinions opposed to the established system of order;

4. ensure that no penalties involving forced labour may be imposed on those who participate in strikes;

5. to provide detailed information on the developments in the legislative reforms and the application of those in practice as well as to seek ILO technical assistance to align these laws with the Convention.

Worker members – We thank the Government of Zimbabwe for its comments. We note that the examples discussed by my colleagues show clearly that the Government uses the criminal provisions in the MOPA, the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the Labour Act, which has stiff punishments including compulsory prison labour, to deny workers and trade unionists the right to exercise their fundamental rights and civil liberties.

In the 2019 conclusions of this Committee regarding the Government of Zimbabwe’s compliance with Convention No. 87, it called upon the Government to repeal the POSA and ensure that the replacement legislation on public order does not violate workers’ rights.

But as we have already indicated, the replacement legislation, the MOPA, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, “has worrying similarities to the POSA” in that the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly is not fully guaranteed. In fact, in many ways, the maintenance of the MOPA is more draconian than the POSA.

Again, the Committee of Experts has expressed regret that the repealed provisions of the POSA remain potent and well under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

The Government must fully implement the recommendations of the 2009 Commission of Inquiry without further delay to ensure that no forms of forced or compulsory labour are used in law or practice as punishment for exercising civil liberties or fundamental trade union rights, including holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Government must immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant sections of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act imposing sentences and penalties involving compulsory labour are not imposed on persons who hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Government must provide to the Committee of Experts, at its next meeting, information on the application of any such provisions in practice, including court decisions.

The 2019 conclusions of the Conference Committee also called on the Government to ensure that the Labour Act is amended in compliance with Convention No. 87. As we have clearly seen, the provisions relating to the punishment of persons engaged in unlawful collective actions, with sanctions of imprisonment and with compulsory prison labour, remain in the Labour Act and are applied in a manner that violates Convention No. 105. The Government must, as a matter of urgency, amend the law to ensure that no sanctions of imprisonment may be imposed for organizing or peacefully participating in strikes, noting that the Committee of Experts has been calling on the Government to repeal these provisions since 2002.

After five observations since 2010, ten observations since 2002, a failure to implement the recommendations of the 2009 Commission of Inquiry on relevant legislation and a failure to implement the conclusions of the Committee on relevant provisions, including in 2019, and given the numerous times Zimbabwe has failed to comply with obligations affecting civil liberties and the exercise of fundamental rights in law and in practice, we call on the Government to avail itself of all the opportunities for technical assistance by the ILO, including the pending direct contacts mission, to ensure that it complies with the conclusions of the Committee, including the conclusions adopted today, with respect to the Convention.

We will request that this Committee include its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee deplored the continued use of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political or social system.

The Committee recalled the outstanding recommendations of the 2009 Commission of Inquiry and the need for their rapid, full and effective implementation.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government of Zimbabwe to:

• ensure that no penalties involving forced labour may be imposed so as to be in compliance with Articles 1(a) and 1(d) of Convention No. 105;
• repeal or amend sections 31, 33, 37 and 41 of the Criminal Law Code, sections 7(5) and 8(11) of the MOPO Act, and sections 102(b), 104(2)–(3), 109(1)–(2), and 112(1) of the Labour Act in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention in consultation with the social partners without delay; and
• provide information to the Committee of Experts before its next session on the application of the above provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions and details of penalties imposed.

The Committee urges the Government to comply fully with the recommendations of the 2009 Commission of Inquiry before the next International Labour Conference. The Committee urges the Government to avail itself of technical assistance and to report to the Committee of Experts prior to its 2021 session.

The Committee decides to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

Government representative – My Government has taken note of the conclusions and would like to point out that technical assistance from the Office is never rejected. However, the context of technical assistance arising from an examination of the country has to be in line with the terms of appearance and the related issues discussed. Therefore, issues that are not related to the Convention, including previous conclusions on other Conventions, should not be examined. To this end, the conclusions on the discussion under Convention No. 105 cannot be grounded in the recommendations of the 2009 Commission of Inquiry relating to the observance by Zimbabwe of Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

With the concurrence of this Committee, the Government of Zimbabwe would like to proceed to engage with the Office in order to streamline the technical assistance that is being recommended. My Government wants it on record that it is accepting the technical assistance to address, through labour law reform, aspects of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] that are not in sync with Convention No. 105 and, more importantly, to align the Act with the national criminal justice system.

Regrettably, my Government does not accept a special paragraph. This position is based on the following: there is no forced labour in the prisons of Zimbabwe; the Committee of Experts has never proved that the practice exists in the prison system; and most issues contained in the report of the Committee of Experts and those presented by the Workers’ delegates, in particular the spokesperson of the Workers’ group, during the discussion relate to Convention No. 87 on freedom of association, for which Zimbabwe is not listed. For the record, once again, the Committee of Experts did not analyse the new MOPA that was promulgated in November 2019, and it does not dispute the commitment of the Zimbabwe Government to addressing the issues in the Labour Act that relate to Convention No. 105.

The conclusions do not take into account the submissions made by several delegates which noted the absence of forced labour in the prison system of Zimbabwe and commended Zimbabwe on the progress regarding labour law reform. Equally relevant was the call by some delegates for engagement, not condemnation. My Government reserves the right to make an intervention during the presentation of the Committee’s report in the plenary.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 64(1)(c), (d), 72(1), (2) and 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Cap. 10:27), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed for the abuse of freedom of expression, operating a mass media service without a registration certificate, falsification or fabrication of information or contravention of any other provision of the Act.

Referring to its observation addressed to the Government under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of the above provisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention, as well as information on measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted a communication received, in September 2009, from the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which contained observations concerning the application of the Convention by Zimbabwe. The ZCTU alleged, inter alia, that national laws (such as the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act) contain provisions restricting freedom of expression in criticizing the President and the police, and that workers, as well as citizens in general, are subjected to harassment if they express views contrary to the State. The Committee has also noted the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution to examine the observance by the Government of Zimbabwe of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has noted, in particular, the complainants’ allegations concerning, among others, the continual recourse made by the Government to the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act to repress basic civil liberties and trade union rights, as well as the Commission’s conclusions, in which the Commission, inter alia, expressed the opinion that the way in which the POSA has been used in practice denies trade unions the right to demonstrate.

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions of national legislation, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996) may be imposed in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention:

–      sections 15, 16, 19(1)(b), (c) and 24–27 of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) (Cap. 11:17) (publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State; making any false statement about or concerning the President; performing any action, uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace; failure to notify the authority of the intention to hold public gatherings, violation of the prohibition of public gatherings or public demonstrations, etc.);

–      sections 31 and 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23), which contain provisions similar to those of the POSA referred to under the previous point concerning the publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State or making any false statement about or concerning the President, etc.;

–      sections 37 and 41 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23), under which sanctions of imprisonment may be imposed, inter alia, for participating in meetings and gatherings with the intention of “disturbing the peace, security or order of the public”; uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, “intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace”; engaging in disorderly conduct in public places with similar intention, etc.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention if they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of Government policy and the established political system, whether the prohibition is imposed by law or by an administrative decision. Since opinions and views opposed to the established system may be expressed not only through the press or other communications media, but also at various kinds of meetings and assemblies, if such meetings and assemblies are subject to prior authorization granted at the discretion of the authorities and violations can be punished by sanctions involving compulsory labour, such provisions also come within the scope of the Convention (see, for example, the explanations in paragraph 162 of the General Survey referred to above).

While taking due note of the Government’s statement that courts of law merely impose a prison term and the suitability of an offender to perform labour is determined by the prison authorities, the Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of “any form” of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment in respect of the persons covered by Article 1(a).

The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend the provisions of the Public Order and Security Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Labour Act punishing persons engaged in an unlawful collective action with sanctions of imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996. The Committee noted, in particular, that section 104(2), and (3) of the Labour Act, as amended, not only prohibits collective job action in essential services and in the case of the agreement of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration, but also provides for other restrictions on the right to collective job action related to procedural requirements, which are equally enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), under sections 109(1), (2) and 112(1) of the Act. Besides, it follows from the wording of section 102(b) of the Act that the Minister can declare essential any service, other than that interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It also notes that, in its conclusions referred to above, the Commission of Inquiry expressed concern that the legislation includes disproportionate sanctions for the exercise of the right to strike and an excessively large definition of essential services, which means that a significant number of workers has no right to strike.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that, in the context of labour law reform, consideration is being made for the review of section 109 of the Labour Act in so far as reference is made to penalties for engaging in unlawful collective job action.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will soon be taken to amend the provisions of the Labour Act imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour, so as to ensure that no such sanctions can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or participating in strikes, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes a communication received in September 2009 from the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by Zimbabwe. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government in November 2009 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.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, subparagraph (a), of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour in virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations 1996) may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

(a)    sections 15, 16, 19(1)(b), (c) and 24–27 of the Public Order and Security Act (Cap. 11:17) (publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State; making any false statement about or concerning the President; performing any action, uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace; failure to notify the authority of the intention to hold public gathering, violation of the prohibition of public gatherings or public demonstrations, etc.);

(b)    sections 64(1)(c), (d), 72(1), (2) and 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Cap. 10:27) (abuse of freedom of expression; operating a mass media service without a registration certificate, falsification or fabrication of information or contravention of any other provision of the Act).

The Committee has also noted that sections 31 and 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) contain provisions similar to those of the Public Order and Security Act referred to under point (a) above concerning the publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State or making any false statement about or concerning the President, etc. It has also noted the provisions of sections 37 and 41 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, under which sanctions of imprisonment may be imposed, inter alia, for participating in meetings and gatherings with the intention of “disturbing the peace, security or order of the public”; uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, “intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace”; engaging in disorderly conduct in public place with similar intention, etc.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Since opinions and views opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings and assemblies, if such meetings and assemblies are subject to prior authorization granted at the discretion of the authorities and violations can be punished by sanctions involving compulsory labour, such provisions also come within the scope of the Convention (see e.g. the explanations in paragraph 162 of the General Survey referred to above).

The Committee observes that the above provisions of national law provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their conformity with the Convention. It also refers in this connection to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Zimbabwe, in which the Committee agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2365) and noted that trade unionists were charged under the Public Order and Security Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in connection with their participation in public meetings and demonstrations.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Public Order and Security Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1, subparagraph (d), of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act punishing persons engaged in an unlawful collective action with sanctions of imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour in virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations 1996. The Committee noted, in particular, that section 104(2), (3) of the Labour Relations Act, as amended, not only prohibits collective job action in essential services and in case of the agreement of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration, but also provides for other restrictions on the right to collective job action related to procedural requirements, which are equally enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), under sections 109(1) and 112(1) of the Act.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations in paragraphs 182–187 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or in the situations of force majeure. However, the Committee observed that the Labour Relations Act, as amended, imposes such penalties in a wider range of circumstances (e.g. in case of violation of restrictions related to procedural requirements), which is not in conformity with the Convention. Besides, it follows from the wording of section 102(b) of the Act that the Minister can declare essential any service, other than that interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Furthermore, the Committee has noted that certain services listed as “essential” in section 19 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, such as services related to production, supply, delivery or distribution of fuel, or transport services, do not seem to satisfy the criteria of “essential services in the strict sense of the term” (see e.g. the explanations in paragraph 587 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, 2006).

The Committee has duly noted the Government’s statement that, in practice, the right to strike takes precedence over the sanctions and that the sanctions are applicable only after the violation of the provisions of the Act. While noting these indications, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to the cases of force majeure, and that no such sanctions can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or participating in peaceful strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour in virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations 1996) may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

(a)   sections 15, 16, 19(1)(b), (c) and 24–27 of the Public Order and Security Act (Cap. 11:17) (publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State; making any false statement about or concerning the President; performing any action, uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace; failure to notify the authority of the intention to hold public gathering, violation of the prohibition of public gatherings or public demonstrations, etc.);

(b)   sections 64(1)(c), (d), 72(1), (2) and 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Cap. 10:27) (abuse of freedom of expression; operating a mass media service without a registration certificate, falsification or fabrication of information or contravention of any other provision of the Act).

The Committee has also noted that sections 31 and 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) contain provisions similar to those of the Public Order and Security Act referred to under point (a) above concerning the publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State or making any false statement about or concerning the President, etc. It has also noted the provisions of sections 37 and 41 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, under which sanctions of imprisonment may be imposed, inter alia, for participating in meetings and gatherings with the intention of “disturbing the peace, security or order of the public”; uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, “intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace”; engaging in disorderly conduct in public place with similar intention, etc.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Since opinions and views opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings and assemblies, if such meetings and assemblies are subject to prior authorization granted at the discretion of the authorities and violations can be punished by sanctions involving compulsory labour, such provisions also come within the scope of the Convention (see e.g. the explanations in paragraph 162 of the General Survey referred to above).

The Committee observes that the above provisions of national law provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their conformity with the Convention. It also refers in this connection to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Zimbabwe, in which the Committee agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2365) and noted that trade unionists were charged under the Public Order and Security Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in connection with their participation in public meetings and demonstrations.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Public Order and Security Act and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act punishing persons engaged in an unlawful collective action with sanctions of imprisonment, which involves compulsory prison labour in virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations 1996. The Committee noted, in particular, that section 104(2), (3) of the Labour Relations Act, as amended, not only prohibits collective job action in essential services and in case of the agreement of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration, but also provides for other restrictions on the right to collective job action related to procedural requirements, which are equally enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), under sections 109(1) and 112(1) of the Act.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations in paragraphs 182–187 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or in the situations of force majeure. However, the Committee observed that the Labour Relations Act, as amended, imposes such penalties in a wider range of circumstances (e.g., in case of violation of restrictions related to procedural requirements), which is not in conformity with the Convention. Besides, it follows from the wording of section 102(b) of the Act that the Minister can declare essential any service, other than that interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Furthermore, the Committee has noted that certain services listed as “essential” in section 19 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, such as services related to production, supply, delivery or distribution of fuel, or transport services, do not seem to satisfy the criteria of “essential services in the strict sense of the term” (see e.g. the explanations in paragraph 587 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, 2006).

The Committee has duly noted the Government’s statement in its report that, in practice, the right to strike takes precedence over the sanctions and that the sanctions are applicable only after the violation of the provisions of the Act. While noting these indications, and referring also to its observation addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to the cases of force majeure, and that no such sanctions can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or participating in peaceful strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, as well as the legislation annexed to the report. It notes the Government’s indication that the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act have been repealed and replaced by the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Cap. 9:23). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate a copy of this Act, which has been referred to by the Government as attached to the report, but has not been received in the ILO.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act punishing persons engaged in an unlawful collective action with sanctions of imprisonment, which may involve prison labour in virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996. The Committee noted, in particular, that section 104(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as amended, not only prohibits collective job action in essential services, and in case of the agreement of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration, but also provides for other restrictions on the right to collective job action related to procedural requirements, which are equally enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving prison labour), under sections 109(1) and 112(1) of the Act.

The Committee referred to the explanations in paragraphs 123-132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or for participation in strikes in breach of freely concluded collective agreements, or in the situations of force majeure. However, the Committee observed that the Labour Relations Act, as amended, imposes such penalties in a wider range of circumstances, which is not in conformity with the Convention. Besides, the wording of section 102 of the Act allows the Minister to declare essential any service, other than that interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

Since the Government’s report contains no new information on this issue, the Committee reiterates its hope, referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Zimbabwe, that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions of the Labour Relations Act imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to the cases of force majeure, or to the situations where the parties concerned agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, and that no such sanctions can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(a). The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely: (a) sections 15, 16, 19(1)(b) and (c) and 24-27 of the Public Order and Security Act (Cap. 11:17) (publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State; making any false statement about or concerning the President; performing any action, uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace; failure to notify the authority of the intention to hold a public gathering, violation of the prohibition of public gatherings or public demonstrations, etc.); (b) sections 64(1)(c) and (d), 72(1)(2) and 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Cap. 10:27) (abuse of freedom of expression; operating a mass media service without a registration certificate, falsification or fabrication of information or contravention of any other provision of the Act).

The Committee pointed out, referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133-140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system.

The Committee observed that the above provisions of national law provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice.

While taking note of the Government’s view expressed in the report that labour performed pursuant to a conviction in a court of law cannot be deemed inconsistent with the Convention, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 104 and 105 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that the exclusion of prison labour under Convention No. 29 does not automatically apply to Convention No. 105. The Committee pointed out that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105 but, if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed certain political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, such situations are covered by the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to supply copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of the above provisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention, as well as information on measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

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

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous comments, as well as the pieces of legislation annexed to the report. However, it repeats its request for copies of the following legislation: the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act, laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act concerning compulsory arbitration and prohibition of any collective job action enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (under section 112(1) of the Act), which may involve prison labour in virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996. Referring to its comments on the application of Convention No. 98, likewise ratified by Zimbabwe, the Committee has noted with interest that, under the new section 93(5) of the Labour Relations Act, as amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Act No. 17/2002, recourse to compulsory arbitration is possible only with the agreement of the parties concerned or when conciliation procedures have failed in the essential services. However, the Committee has noted that section 104(2) and (3) of the Labour Relations Act, as amended, not only prohibits collective job actions in essential services and in case of the agreement of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration, but also provides for other restrictions on the right to collective job action related to procedural requirements, which are equally enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving prison labour), under sections 109(1) and 112(1) of the Act.

The Committee again draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 123-132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or for participation in strikes in breach of freely concluded collective agreements, or in the situations of force majeure. However, the Labour Relations Act, as amended, imposes such penalties in a wider range of circumstances, which is not in conformity with the Convention. Besides, the wording of section 102 of the Act allows the minister to declare essential any service, other than that interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to the cases of force majeure, or to the situations where the parties concerned agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(a). The Committee has noted that penalties or imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under various provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention, namely:

(a)  sections 15, 16, 19(1)(b), (c) and 24-27 of the Public Order and Security Act (Cap. 11:17) (publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State; making any false statement about or concerning the President; performing any action, uttering any words or distributing or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to provoke a breach of peace; failure to notify the authority of the intention to hold public gathering, violation of the prohibition of public gatherings or public demonstrations, etc.);

(b)  sections 64(1)(c), (d), 72(1)(2) and 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Cap. 10:27) (abuse of freedom of expression; operating a mass media service without a registration certificate; falsification or fabrication of information or contravention of any other provision of the Act).

The Committee points out, referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system.

The Committee has noted that the above provisions of national law provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. It therefore requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention, as well as information on measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first and second reports on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the following legislation: the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act; laws governing the press and other media; laws governing public assemblies, meetings and processions; laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee refers to its comments on the application of Convention No. 98, also ratified by Zimbabwe, where it notes that certain provisions of the Labour Relations Act grant the labour authorities the power to refer labour disputes to compulsory arbitration whenever they consider it appropriate. The Committee notes that, under section 104(3) of the same Act, in such situation, any collective job action is prohibited and deemed unlawful, and under section 112(1) any contravention to this prohibition is punishable with imprisonment (which may involve prison labour by virtue of section 76(1) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 7:11) and section 66(1) of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee requests that measures be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing compulsory arbitration enforced with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.