Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 363, March 2012

Case No 2616 (Mauritius) - Complaint date: 03-DEC-07 - Closed

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

1. 187. The Committee last examined this case, which concerned alleged use of repressive measures against the trade union movement, including criminal prosecutions, in violation of the right to strike and engage in protests, at its November 2010 meeting [see 358th Report, paras 64–67]. On that occasion, the Committee had requested the Government to take steps to review the Public Gathering Act (PGA) and its application, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, so as to ensure that sections 7, 8 and 18 are not applied in practice such as to impede the legitimate exercise of protest action in relation to the Government’s social and economic policy; and expected that the Government would facilitate a speedy resolution of the case concerning Toolsyraj Benydin and Radhakrishna Sadien and that the court would issue its ruling without further delay. Moreover, in light of the previously raised concerns to the effect that the prosecution of the two trade unionists commenced nearly one and a half years after the protests, thus leading one to query its rationale (ensuring public order or repressing the trade union movement as contended by the complainants) and observing that the appeal proceedings were initiated more than two years ago, the Committee once again asked the Government to raise to the competent authorities the possibility of giving a favourable review to this matter. It requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to provide it with a copy of the judgment as soon as it is handed down.
2. 188. In a communication dated 31 October 2011, the Government indicates that it is reconsidering the review of the relevant sections of the PGA. Pursuant to the views expressed by the Commissioner of Police to the effect that these sections do not contravene the principles of freedom of association and that consequently no amendments need to be brought to the Act, the State Law Office is being consulted on the matter. As regards the appeal lodged by Mr Benydin and Mr Sadien against the intermediate court judgment, the Government indicates that the case is still pending before the Supreme Court and that it is not in a position to facilitate a speedy resolution of the case in view of the fact that the Constitution of Mauritius embodies the concept of separation of powers.
3. 189. As regards the PGA, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in light of the previous observation of the Committee, it is reconsidering the review of the relevant sections of the PGA. In these circumstances, the Committee trusts that the Government will take steps to review the PGA and its application, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, so as to ensure that sections 7, 8 and 18 are not applied in practice such as to impede the legitimate exercise of protest action in relation to the Government’s social and economic policy. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any development in this regard.
4. 190. As regards the appeal lodged by the trade unionists, Mr Benydin and Mr Sadien, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the case is still pending before the Supreme Court and that it is not in a position to facilitate a speedy resolution of the case in view of the fact that the Constitution of Mauritius embodies the concept of separation of powers. Observing that the appeal proceedings were initiated almost four years ago and that at the time, a prohibition order was also issued stipulating that the two men would not be allowed to leave Mauritius without prior authorization from the Supreme Court and in this regard, their passports were confiscated, the Committee is bound to deplore this excessive delay, the negative impact on their trade union rights and freedoms and wishes to recall once again that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 105]. Recalling that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for the principles of freedom of association lies with the Government, the Committee once again expects that the competent authorities will facilitate a speedy resolution of the case and that the court will issue its ruling without further delay. Moreover, in light of the previously raised concerns to the effect that the prosecution of two trade unionists commenced nearly one and a half years after the protests, thus leading one to query its rationale (ensuring public order or repressing the trade union movement as contented by the complainants) [see 358th Report, para. 67], the Committee once again asks the Government to raise to the competent authorities the possibility of giving a favourable review to this matter. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to provide it with a copy of the judgment as soon as it is handed down. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the passports have been returned to Messrs Benydin and Sadien.