Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 357, June 2010

Case No 2382 (Cameroon) - Complaint date: 10-AUG-04 - Closed

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

1. 17. At its last examination of this case, during its June 2009 meeting [see 354th Report, paras 19 to 34], the Committee recalled once again the need for the Government to conduct an inquiry without delay into the conditions surrounding the detention of Mr Joseph Ze, General Secretary of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers Training Faculty (SNUIPEN), on 16 April 2004, taking into account the serious allegations of torture and extortion of which Mr Ze is said to have been the victim when in custody. The Committee also invited the Government or the complainant organization to keep it informed of any possible appeal before a competent court concerning the legality of calling a second SNUIPEN congress on 4 August 2004, as well as of any court rulings handed down in this case.
2. 18. In a communication dated 2 September 2009, the complainant claims that the Government is continuing to disregard the Committee’s recommendations and that Mr Ze’s salary payments remain suspended for the eighth consecutive month, a situation which has adverse consequences for his private life especially just before the end of the school holiday.
3. 19. In a communication dated 12 October 2009, the Government provided some observations. First, the Government considers that it is not its responsibility to hold an inquiry into Mr Ze’s detention because this is a matter of general law. The Government recalls that Mr Ze was the subject of an inquiry for financial irregularities, and that he was questioned in connection with suspected offences under the Code of Criminal Investigations (since then repealed by the new Code of Criminal Procedure). The Government indicates that, if there has in fact been abuse of authority and torture, the victim is able to seek redress before the courts. Lastly, recalling that with criminal legislation as it stands no one may be held in custody without a hearing, the Government states that there should be a preliminary inquiry dossier, which Mr Ze appears to be disregarding for the sake of advancing his own cause.
4. 20. As regards the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary payments, the Government states that this will cease once he takes appropriate action, namely by returning to his post and obtaining confirmation of his presence from the competent authority, applying for resumption of salary, and formally and regularly requesting release from normal work obligations where his status as an elected union official does not automatically entail such a discharge.
5. 21. The Government also reiterates that it has always refrained from interfering in trade union activities and considers that the allegations made against it have resulted from the bad faith of union officials who lack any legitimacy from their own union. Lastly, the Government states that it will communicate any court ruling handed down in the case to the Committee.
6. 22. In a communication dated 24 February 2010, the Government states that it has no new information on the case.
7. 23. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant organization and the Government’s response to certain points. The Committee recalls that the present case, which it has been examining since 2005, concerns the arrest, detention and interrogation of the General Secretary of the SNUIPEN, Mr Joseph Ze, and interference by the authorities in an internal union dispute.
8. 24. As regards the recommendations which it has been making since 2005 regarding an inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence into the events surrounding the interrogation and detention of Mr Ze from 16 April 2004, the Committee once again regrets the absence of information from the Government in this regard. The Committee notes with concern the Government’s statement to the effect that it is not responsible for holding an inquiry because the allegations are matters of general law that, if there has in fact been abuse of authority and torture, the victim is able to seek redress before the courts, and that, with legislation as it now stands, there should exist a preliminary inquiry dossier which the complainant appears to be disregarding in the interests of furthering its own cause. The Committee wishes to recall that, in a previous examination of the case, it had observed that Mr Ze was questioned by the police, kept in custody and was brutally and summarily interrogated, without a court having had the opportunity to give a ruling as to the accusations brought against him. Furthermore, the Government had acknowledged that what it referred to as a “procedure to recover” these funds had entailed the complainant being taken into custody illegally. The Committee had also noted that one of the officers involved in the detention (Captain Mengnfo Faï) had been suspended pending the conclusions of an investigation by the Secretary of State for Defence into the conditions of detention of Mr Ze. Lastly, the Committee, noting that certain police officers had effectively taken the side of the dissident faction of SNUIPEN and, following pressure during the interrogations and the detentions, had forced Mr Ze to release funds belonging to the union in order to give them to the dissidents, had indicated that such action was tantamount to seizure and confiscation of union funds, without any court ruling, to profit a third party [see 338th Report, paras 528, 530 and 531].
9. 25. The Committee recalls that it has since that time been requesting information on the outcome of the inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence because, in the light of the serious allegations concerning acts of torture and extortion of which Mr Ze is said to have been the victim, such an inquiry would make it possible to ascertain the facts and responsibilities, punish those responsible, and above all prevent any future recurrence of such acts. The Committee is surprised at the Government’s most recent and somewhat terse reply in this regard, and recalls that the Government had itself acknowledged that abuse had occurred. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected. In the event of assaults on the physical or moral integrity of individuals, the Committee has considered that an independent judicial inquiry should be instituted immediately with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts. The absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates, in practice, a situation of impunity, which reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity, and which is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights. [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 44, 50 and 52]. Consequently, the Committee reiterates yet again its request for information on the outcome of any inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence into the conditions surrounding the detention of Mr Ze in April 2004 and, if such an inquiry has not already been carried out, the Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary steps to carry out such an inquiry into the complainant organization’s allegations in this regard, in particular in the light of what it refers to as the existing preliminary inquiry dossier on the detention.
10. 26. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no information on the complainant’s allegations concerning interrogations of Mr Ze by the police in March 2007 and March 2008 and his detention from 17 to 24 March 2008, without any hearing. The Committee urges the Government to provide its observations in this regard.
11. 27. As regards the allegations concerning the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary on the grounds of his periodic absences from work, the Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to examine without delay, in light of the underlying facts, the possibility of releasing Mr Ze from work for the purpose of carrying on his trade union duties, if necessary explaining to Mr Ze the procedures for obtaining such a discharge. The Committee notes that the Government in its reply confines itself to stating that the suspension in the payment of salary will cease as soon as the person concerned takes appropriate action by returning to work and obtaining confirmation of his presence from the competent authority, applying for a resumption of salary payments, and formally and regularly requesting release from his normal work duties where his union office does not automatically allow for such a dispensation. The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to indicate whether Mr Ze has returned to his post and has engaged in the established procedure for requesting release from work and, if so, whether the suspension of salary payments has been ended and the release from normal duties has been granted.
12. 28. The Committee has taken note of the Government’s statement to the effect that it has always refrained from any interference in union activities, and the accusations made against it reflect the bad faith of union officials lacking legitimacy in their own union. Recalling the background to this case, in which it noted that certain police officers took up the cause of one faction in SNUIPEN, and the allegations that the Government clearly favoured one faction of SNUIPEN in the media, the Committee trusts that the Government will, as it has claimed, maintain a position of strict neutrality with regard to internal union disputes, and in particular within SNUIPEN.
13. 29. Lastly, the Committee again invites the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of any proceedings before the competent judicial authorities that would allow to clarify the situation with regard to the legitimate representation of SNUIPEN, of any definitive ruling handed down in this respect, and of any other mechanisms invoked by the parties to resolve the dispute.