Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Mozambique (Ratification: 1977)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016.

Repetition

Article 1(a) and (b) of the Convention. Compulsory labour for persons identified as “unproductive” or “anti-social”. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend the Ministerial Directive of 15 June 1985 on the evacuation of towns, under which persons identified as “unproductive” or “anti-social” may be arrested and sent to re-education centres or assigned to productive sectors. The Government indicated previously that re-education centres no longer existed and that the 1985 Directive had become obsolete and would be repealed within the framework of the revision of the Penal Code. The Committee observes with regret that the new Penal Code adopted in December 2014 (Act No. 35/2014) does not repeal this Directive. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 1(a) and (b) of the Convention, States undertake not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to formally repeal the Ministerial Directive of 15 June 1985 on the evacuation of towns so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and with the practice indicated, and thereby ensure legal certainty.

Article 1(b) and (c). Imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for the purposes of economic development and as a means of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been emphasizing the need to amend or repeal certain provisions of Act No. 5/82 of 9 June 1982 concerning the defence of the economy. This Act provides for the punishment of types of conduct which, directly or indirectly, jeopardize economic development, prevent the implementation of the national plan and are detrimental to the material or spiritual well-being of the population. Sections 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the Act prescribe prison sentences, which may involve compulsory labour, for repeated cases of failure to fulfil the economic obligations set forth in instructions, directives, procedures, etc., governing the preparation or implementation of the national State plan. Section 7 of the Act penalizes unintentional conduct (such as negligence, the lack of a sense of responsibility, etc.) resulting in the infringement of managerial or disciplinary standards.

The Committee noted previously that in 2007 the Constitutional Council declared a law adopted by the Assembly of the Republic repealing Act No. 5/82 (as amended by Act No. 9/87) to be unconstitutional, considering that the blanket repeal of these Acts would have the effect of no longer criminalizing or punishing certain conducts that jeopardize economic development that are not punishable by other legislative texts, thereby leaving a legal vacuum. The Committee notes that, although the 2014 Penal Code repeals certain provisions of these two Acts, the sections covered by its previous comments, namely sections 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14, remain in force. The Committee regrets that the Government did not take the opportunity of the adoption of the new Penal Code to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and it trusts that the Government will not fail to take the necessary measures to repeal the provisions of Act No. 5/82 concerning the defence of the economy, as amended by Act No. 9/87, which are contrary to the Convention.

Article 1(d). Penalties imposed for participation in strikes. In previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 268(3) of the Labour Act (Act No. 23/2007), striking workers who are in violation of the provisions of section 202(1) and section 209(1) (obligation to ensure a minimum service) face disciplinary penalties and may incur criminal liability, in accordance with the general legislation. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on the nature of the penalties which may be faced by striking workers in cases where their criminal liability is incurred, nor on the provisions of the general legislation that are applicable in this respect. The Committee recalls in this regard that, in accordance with Article 1(d) of the Convention, persons who participate peacefully in a strike cannot be liable to imprisonment involving compulsory labour. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the nature of the penalties that may be imposed on striking workers where their criminal liability is incurred pursuant to the provisions of section 268(3) of the Labour Act. Referring also to its comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour can be imposed on workers who participate peacefully in a strike.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.