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

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Angola (Ratification: 1976)

Adoption and communication of legislation which may have an effect on the application of the Convention. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government indicates, in the framework of its report submitted on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), that the process of adoption of the new Penal Code is still in progress. The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the imposition of forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or for participation in a strike. Once again, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that, to avoid any problem with the application of the Convention, it is important that the new Penal Code not provide for penalties of imprisonment to punish the acts by which citizens express political opinions peacefully or express their opposition to the established political, social or economic order, or participate in strikes. Indeed, prison penalties, entailing obligatory work – which is the case in Angola by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Regulation of the progressive regime of 9 July 1981 – are contrary to the Convention as they are imposed to punish the expression of political opinions or opposition, including through the press or any other media, or to punish participation in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if the new Penal Code has been adopted and, if so, to provide a copy. It hopes that, within the framework of this process, the Government will take account of preceding developments.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee recalls that, in terms of section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, a member of the crew who deserts at the port of embarkation is liable to a prison sentence of up to a year; the sentence may be two years if desertion takes place in another port. By virtue of section 137, crew members who do not carry out an order from superiors, having to do with services not compromising the security of the ship, are liable to a sentence of imprisonment of one to six months. Simple refusal to obey an order, followed by voluntarily carrying it out, is punishable by a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment. The Committee pointed out that these provisions were contrary to the Convention in so far as they permit imposing prison sentences (including obligatory work by virtue of sections 13 and 50(c) of the Regulation of the progressive regime of 9 July 1981) for certain breaches in labour discipline which do not endanger the security of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government does not provide information on the revision process for the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code, to which it previously referred. The Committee points out, moreover, that a new law on merchant marines was adopted in 2012 (Law No. 27/12 of 28 August 2012). However, this Law does not govern the legal regime for conditions of work for seafarers (section 57), which is to be the subject of special legislation; the aforementioned provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code remain in force. Consequently, the Committee requests once again that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that the aforementioned provisions of the Merchant Shipping Penal and Disciplinary Code be modified or repealed to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the security of the ship or the life or health of persons on board are not punishable with a prison sentence. Please provide copies of the new legislation adopted to this end.

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the attention of the Government to the need for modifying the provisions of section 72(1) of the Law on strikes (Law No. 23/91 of 15 June 1991), according to which the organizers of a strike, that is prohibited, unlawful or whose activity had been suspended by virtue of the law, are liable to a prison sentence or a fine. Therefore, pursuant to this section, obligatory work (compulsory work as a result of a prison sentence) could be imposed on the organizer of a prohibited, unlawful or suspended strike. Furthermore, the Committee also pointed out, in this regard, that the legislation foresaw a certain number of restrictions in exercising the right to strike, which could have the effect of making illegal an activity which would be legitimate according to the principles of freedom of association (see on this subject the comments formulated by the Committee on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)).

The Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the state of progress of the revision process of the Law on strikes. It recalls that it has drawn the attention of the Government several times to the need for modifying a certain number of provisions in the Law on strikes, both with respect to control of the application of that Convention and of Convention No. 87. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the very near future to modify the Law on strikes (No. 23/91) to ensure that, in conformity with Article 1(d) of the Convention, persons who participate peacefully in a strike may not be punished with a sentence of imprisonment.