Interim Report - Report No 98, 1967

Case No 437 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) - Complaint date: 09-MAR-65 - Closed

213. Case No. 437, which consists of a complaint made in 1965 by the General Confederation of Labour of the Congo (C.G.T.C.), has already been examined by the Committee at its 42nd Session held in February 1966, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 82 to 89 of its 89th Report. That report was adopted by the Governing Body at its 165th Session (May 1966).

1. 213. Case No. 437, which consists of a complaint made in 1965 by the General Confederation of Labour of the Congo (C.G.T.C.), has already been examined by the Committee at its 42nd Session held in February 1966, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 82 to 89 of its 89th Report. That report was adopted by the Governing Body at its 165th Session (May 1966).
2. 214. Case No. 500 consists of a complaint made by the General Confederation of Labour of the Congo in a communication dated 21 November 1966, supplemented by two communications dated 13 December 1966 and 10 January 1967, and a complaint relating to the same matters made by the World Federation of Trade Unions, which was contained in a communication of 26 November 1966, supplemented by a communication dated 7 January 1967.
3. 215. Since, on the one hand, these two cases both consist of allegations relating to measures taken against the General Confederation of Labour of the Congo and its leaders and, on the other hand, the most recent observations of the Government consist of an explanation of the attitude of the authorities towards that organisation, it was felt appropriate to consider the two matters together at the present stage.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 216. When considering Case No. 437 at its session held in February 1966, the Committee took note of the allegation of the C.G.T.C according to which, unlike the leaders of other organisations, its leaders were refused authorisation to leave the country in order to take part in international meetings. Noting that the Government's observations were confined to stating that the refusal of authorisation for the persons concerned arose from their not having complied with the requirements of the national immigration service and that the Government had " no other observations to make ", the Committee considered that the Government's reply was too condensed to enable it to determine whether trade union rights had been violated or not in this particular case. It therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be so good as to specify the reasons for which the persons named in the complaint had been refused permission to leave the country.
2. 217. That recommendation having been approved by the Governing Body, the request was made to the Government in a letter dated 7 June 1966. Furthermore, in a communication dated 4 November 1966, the complainant organisation referred to two further cases of trade union leaders who had not been able to obtain permission to leave the country. The text of this communication was conveyed to the Government by a letter dated 22 November 1966 to enable it to supply its observations.
3. 218. The allegations which are the subject-matter of Case No. 500 are essentially concerned with the fact that eight trade union leaders and militants of the C.G.T.C. (Mr. J. H. Malhonga, First General Secretary, Messrs. P. Botuli, P. Sassa and A. Wabaka, Confederal Secretaries, Mr. A. Ngoy, Administrative Vice-Secretary, and Messrs. G. Mafwa, T. Mbomu and J. Kitambala) had been arrested while carrying out their trade union duties and that the premises of the organisation had been searched.
4. 219. All the communications from the complainants mentioned under paragraph 214 above were transmitted upon receipt to the Government for its observations.
5. 220. By a communication dated 21 March 1967, the Government submitted its observations on all the complaints made by the C.G.T.C and the W.F.T.U.
6. 221. In this communication the Government first states that for the last one-and-a-half years the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been in a state of emergency proclaimed to cover the whole of the Republic and which has been considered by all concerned to be indispensable and in the overriding interest of the nation.
7. 222. The Government goes on to state that after achieving independence the country had gone through a period of disorder and anarchy without precedent: it was not possible to guarantee the safety of property or persons, the economic and social situation was disastrous, on all sides there was rebellion and hunger. It was in these unfavourable political circumstances that the régime led by Lieut.-Gen. Mobutu was born. The new Government rapidly came to the conclusion that " excessive freedom, including freedom of association, was what was originally responsible for the deterioration in the situation in the Congo. It therefore had to choose whether to give priority to the protection of citizens or to the guaranteeing of freedom. The choice was soon made: rather than ensuring respect for freedom at the price of condemning the Congolese people to death, it preferred to protect men rather than guarantee freedom as without men there can be no freedom."
8. 223. It was under these circumstances, and bearing in mind the above considerations, that the Government found itself obliged to make great sacrifices in all spheres of public life and in particular to place restrictions on the exercise of all freedoms, including freedom of association. These restrictions were imposed in the general interest of the whole population, so that it was the duty of each and every one to co-operate with the authorities.
9. 224. " However," the Government continues," some Congolese had not understood that over and above lawful individual rights and fundamental freedoms there were the interests of the State, and interests of the population as a whole, which were of such importance that when they were threatened it was necessary to consent to sacrifices in order to safeguard them. Such was the case with the General Confederation of Labour of the Congo, which became guilty of subversive activities by using its union to defy the established authorities and cause breaches of the peace.... It goes without saying, bearing in mind all of the foregoing, that action had to be taken with respect to the General Confederation of Labour of the Congo in order to preserve the peace and ensure the calm, tranquillity and prosperity which have been so cruelly lacking in the Congo since it achieved independence.... These are the main reasons ", the Government concludes, "which led the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to take severe action to deal with the above-mentioned union and its leaders."
10. 225. Before the Committee can examine the substance of this case on the basis of the allegations made by the complainants and the Government's observations relating thereto, it must examine a new element that has come about since the Government replied.
11. 226. By a letter dated 18 April 1967 Mr. P. A. Kimbembi, Vice-General Secretary of the C.G.T.C, who signed the communication of 10 January 1967 alleging the arrest of eight trade union leaders and members of the C.G.T.C. (see paragraphs 214 and 218 above), declared on behalf of that organisation that he was withdrawing the complaint presented by it. The letter was worded as follows: " As a result of fresh developments in our relations with the national authorities, we have the honour to signify by the present letter the withdrawal of the complaint lodged with your organisation."

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 227. In similar circumstances the Committee has always considered that the withdrawal of a complaint created a situation whose scope ought to be fully investigated. It has expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention should be paid, was not in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The same position was adopted by the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association when it was dealing with a case relating to Greece. Both the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission and the Committee on Freedom of Association, basing themselves in particular on a principle established by the Governing Body as long ago as 1937, pointed out that they are free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether they appear sufficiently plausible to warrant the belief that the withdrawal is made in complete independence.
2. 228. In view also of the fact that the W.F.T.U, which is also a complainant in this case, has not withdrawn its complaint, the Committee considers that the withdrawal of the complaint by the C.G.T.C is not in itself sufficient to terminate automatically its consideration of the case.
3. 229. This being stated, the Committee notes that the communication of 18 April 1967 received from the spokesman of the C.G.T.C does not specify what are the " new developments " in the relations between the C.G.T.C and the Government which, according to the communication, caused the organisation to withdraw its complaint. It therefore seems necessary to the Committee to be informed as to the nature of the new developments invoked by the complainants to explain the withdrawal of the complaint.

The Committee's recommendations

• (a) to request the C.G.T.C to be good enough to specify what new developments have arisen in its relations with the Government;
• (b) to request the Government also to be good enough to furnish information on the question referred to in the preceding subparagraph;
• (c) to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body whether the persons mentioned in paragraph 218 above have been liberated or whether they have been brought to trial before a normal judicial authority and, if so, to supply the text of the judgment handed down and the grounds adduced therein;
• (d) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will report further when it is in possession of the additional information to be requested from the C.G.T.C and the Government in accordance with subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.