Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2002, Publicación: 91ª reunión CIT (2003)

1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Human Resources Deployment Act, 1983, under which compulsory labour could be imposed by administrative authority on the basis of a general obligation to work and for purposes of economic development, has been repealed by the National Employment Promotion Service Act, 1999 (section 34).

2. The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) and (2) of the Convention. For a number of years the Committee has been commenting on serious discrepancies between national law and practice and the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee referred in this connection to the following provisions:

-  article 25, paragraph 1, of the 1985 Constitution, which provides for a general obligation to work; article 25, paragraph 3(d), of the Constitution, which provides that no work shall be considered as forced labour if it is relief work that is part of compulsory nation-building initiatives, in accordance with the law, or national efforts in harnessing the contribution of everyone in the work of developing the society and national economy and ensuring success in development;

-  the Local Government (District Authorities) Act, 1982, the Employment Ordinance, 1952, as amended, the Penal Code, the Resettlement of Offenders Act, 1969, the Ward Development Committees Act, 1969, and the Local Finances Act, 1982, under which compulsory labour may be imposed, inter alia, by administrative authority, on the basis of a general obligation to work and for purposes of economic development;

-  several by-laws adopted between 1988 and 1992 under section 148 of the Local Government (District Authorities) Act, 1982, entitled "self-help and community development", "nation-building", and "enforcement of human resources deployment", which provide for an obligation to work.

The Committee expressed its concern at the institutionalized and systematic compulsion to work established in law at all levels in the National Constitution, Acts of Parliament and district by-laws, in contradiction to Convention No. 29 and Article 1(b) of Convention No. 105, also ratified by the United Republic of Tanzania, which prohibits the use of compulsory labour for development purposes.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the Employment Ordinance No. 366 of 1952 was being revised and that a draft Bill was tabled to the Cabinet. The Government also indicated that efforts to amend the Penal Code, the Resettlement of Offenders Act, 1969, the Ward Development Committees Act, 1969, and the Local Finances Act, 1982, were under way in the Law Reform Commission.

The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement concerning practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, which in most cases were due to application of by-laws and directives issued by local authorities imposing compulsory labour on the population. The Government states in its latest report that such by-laws do not take much into account the provisions of the ILO Conventions and the national Constitution and that it is trying to adopt a new approach for the enactment of new laws in order to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the international obligations.

The Government indicates in its reports received in 2001 and 2002 that labour laws and other related legislation that are incompatible with the Conventions will be re-examined in the course of the labour policy and legislation reform.

While noting the Government’s awareness of the discrepancies between the national law and practice and the provisions of the Convention, the Committee has also noted the Government’s view that some of such discrepancies fall under the exceptions from the definition of forced labour set out in Article 2(2)(b) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee recalls, referring to paragraph 34 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that the provision of Article 2(2)(b) exempts from the definition of forced labour any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of citizens, examples of such normal civic obligations being the three exceptions specifically provided for in the Convention (compulsory military service, work required in cases of emergency and minor communal service), or also compulsory jury service, the duty to assist a person in danger or to assist in the enforcement of law and order. As the Committee pointed out, these exceptions must be read in the light of other provisions of the Convention and cannot be invoked to justify recourse to forms of compulsory service which are contrary to such other provisions. As regards the provision of Article 2(2)(d), which exempts from the definition of forced labour any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraph 36 of its 1979 General Survey, that the concept of emergency involves a sudden unforeseen happening calling for instant countermeasures; the power to call up labour should be confined to genuine cases of emergency, and the duration and extent of compulsory service should be limited to what is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee points out that the exceptions referred to by the Government cannot be invoked to justify recourse to compulsory labour under the abovementioned national provisions. As regards the example of "self-help schemes" referred to by the Government, the Committee is dealing with this subject in its comments under Convention No. 105.

The Committee urges that the necessary measures be taken in the very near future to repeal or amend the provisions contrary to the Convention.

The Committee is again addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]