Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 349, March 2008

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 22. In its last examination of the case at its November 2006 session [see the 343rd Report, paras 28–32], the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the result of the appeal lodged against the acquittal of Mr Joseph Ze, General Secretary of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers’ Training Faculty (SNUIPEN); of the possible appeal to a competent court requesting a ruling, based on the proven facts and the relevant provisions of the SNUIPEN by-laws, regarding the legality of calling a second SNUIPEN congress and the alleged dismissal of Mr Ze; and of the conclusion of the inquiry conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence into the circumstances surrounding Mr Ze’s detention on 16 April 2004.
2. 23. In a communication dated 24 October 2006, Mr Joseph Ze, in his capacity as General Secretary of SNUIPEN, complains of the difficulties that have surrounded the organization of the second SNUIPEN ordinary congress, which was due to take place on 28 and 29 September 2006, preceded by a training workshop. The complainant organization indicates that all the authorizations required for this event had been obtained (agreement for the use of the meeting room and certificate of announcement of a public meeting issued by the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé V). According to SNUIPEN, however, the Prefect of Mfoundi verbally prohibited the holding of the congress. The complainant organization also alleges that congress participants were dispersed by the police acting under the direction of the Deputy Prefect when they attempted to gather in another district of the city. In the end the congress took place at the home of the General Secretary of SNUIPEN, despite action by the Deputy Prefect of Yaoundé IV and the gendarmes. SNUIPEN denounces this constant harassment and regrets that the disputes in which the police and armed forces intervene are never dealt with by the courts.
3. 24. In a communication dated 2 April 2007, SNUIPEN provides additional information on certain points under examination. With regard to the legality of holding a second SNUIPEN congress and the alleged dismissal of Mr Ze, SNUIPEN states that this was a case of blatant interference by the public authorities in the management of the trade union, as those authorities accepted the credentials presented by dissident members who claim to have convened a congress on 4 August 2004 in Yaoundé. SNUIPEN notes that if the meeting in question took place, it was in contravention of those provisions of the union by-laws concerning convocation, established time limits, the capacity of participants and the issue of quorum. SNUIPEN adds that Mr Joseph Ze was never informed of the decisions adopted by the congress in August 2004, and his arrest and detention prevented him from bringing the matter before the competent judicial authorities with a view to contesting the legality of the congress in question. SNUIPEN alleges that the congress legitimately convened by Mr Ze on 28 and 29 September 2006 did take place, despite the actions of the public authorities, police and armed forces.
4. 25. The complainant organization also denounces the bias of the authorities in inviting dissident members to represent SNUIPEN at meetings of the Ministry of Basic Education, despite the fact that no law or court decision authorizes them to do so. The complainant organization also indicates that the dissidents in question have every opportunity to seek recourse to the competent courts in order to contest the decisions that were taken against them and of which they were informed during the second SNUIPEN congress, but they prefer instead to take advantage of the authorities’ bias and willingness to consent to their wishes.
5. 26. SNUIPEN alleges that the attempt by the Ministry of Basic Education to transfer more than 2 million CFA francs to an account opened by dissident union members is proof of the biased attitude of the authorities. SNUIPEN has opposed this payment in the courts. A ruling on this question is awaited and may also, according to the complainant organization, help to clarify the question of the legality of the SNUIPEN congress on 4 August 2004.
6. 27. As regards the allegations of harassment against Mr Ze, the complainant organization alleges that Mr Ze is being subjected to judicial harassment with a number of formal complaints that have been lodged against him by dissident union members acting in concert. The complainant organization adds that this harassment is also directed against Mr Ze’s wife and daughters, who are regularly contacted by officials of the Ministry of Basic Education.
7. 28. With regard to the inquiry conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence on the circumstances of Mr Ze’s detention on 16 April 2004, the complainant organization recalls that Mr Ze was subjected to torture and extortion when in custody. SNUIPEN states that those responsible for this have been promoted despite their implication in this case. Furthermore, it is claimed that no instructions have been given to the police regarding the need to comply with the law when trade unionists are arrested and detained.
8. 29. In a communication dated 22 August 2007, the Government responds to certain points raised by the complainant organization. It states, first, with regard to the holding of the second SNUIPEN congress on 28 and 29 September 2006, that the faction opposed to Mr Ze tried to call on the police to prevent the congress from taking place. It confirms that the congress took place at the home of the general secretary of SNUIPEN. In this regard, the Government, regretting the escalation in the dispute between the two SNUIPEN factions, states that it has adopted a neutral position. It expresses the hope that, in accordance with the suggestion made by the Committee on Freedom of Association, the two factions may seek recourse to the courts to resolve the question of the legality of the congress convened on 4 August 2004.
9. 30. The Government confirms that Mr Ze was acquitted by the courts of the charge of embezzling public funds, a fact which should bolster the complainant organization’s confidence in the justice system. The Government states that a court ruling to the effect that the congress of 4 August 2004 was not legal would result in an acknowledgement by the public authorities and the security forces that they had made a mistake.
10. 31. Lastly, the Government states that the new Code of Criminal Procedure has changed the methods used by the administrative authorities and police.
11. 32. The Committee takes note of the information supplied by SNUIPEN and the Government's response. It notes that the facts alleged in the allegations made by SNUIPEN are of a serious nature, and requests that the Government take action as a matter of urgency to investigate these allegations and, if they turn out to be well founded, to take the necessary corrective measures.
12. 33. As regards the organization of the second SNUIPEN congress on 28 and 29 September 2006, the Committee notes the information provided to the effect that all the necessary authorizations for the event had been obtained. It also notes that, according to information supplied by the complainant organization and by the Government, dissident members of the union had attempted to prevent the congress from taking place by asking the public authorities and security forces to intervene. The Committee is concerned by this intervention by the security forces to prevent a legitimate trade union meeting from taking place. It recalls and emphasizes the principle that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace. [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, para. 140].
13. 34. As regards the allegations concerning the harassment of Mr Ze, the Committee notes with concern the allegation that his wife and daughter are regularly contacted by officials of the Ministry of Basic Education on matters relating to trade union activities. If proven true, such acts of intimidation, according to the Committee, constitute serious obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights and call for severe measures on the part of the authorities to punish those responsible.
14. 35. As regards the inquiry which the Secretary of State for Defence should conduct into the circumstances of the detention in custody of Mr Ze on 16 April 2004, the Committee notes that no information has been provided on the inquiry’s outcome. The Committee recalls that the inquiry is needed in the light of the serious allegations of torture and extortion of which Mr Ze is said to have been the victim when in custody. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that this inquiry is carried out without delay in order to determine the facts and ascertain responsibilities, punish those responsible, and prevent a recurrence of such acts. The Committee notes the information according to which the new Code of Criminal Procedure has changed the methods used by the administrative authorities and police. It hopes that the necessary instructions will be given to ensure that no trade unionist held in custody is subjected to abusive treatment, and that effective sanctions will be applied where such acts have been committed.
15. 36. As regards the possible appeal before a competent court for a ruling on the legality of holding the second SNUIPEN congress on 4 August 2004, the Committee requests the complainant organization and the Government to keep it informed of any such appeal and any judgements handed down in this case.