Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 217, Juin 1982

Cas no 1080 (Zambie) - Date de la plainte: 05-OCT. -81 - Clos

1. 70. By a communication dated 5 October 1981, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Zambia. The Government sent its observations in letters dated 6 and 25 November 1981. By a letter dated 8 April 1982, the complainant announced its withdrawal of the complaint.
2. 71. Zambia has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 72. The ICFTU alleged the arrest of Frederik Chiluba, Chairman of the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions, Newstead Zimba, General Secretary of this organisation and Deputy Worker member of the ILO Governing Body, Chitala Sampa, Assistant General Secretary of the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions and Timothy Walamba, Vice-Chairman of the Mineworkers Union of Zambia on 27 July 1981. It stated that the Government alleged that these men had been detained for having incited strikes and causing chaos, allegations strongly denied by the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions.

B. The Government's reply

1. 73. In its letter of 6 November 1981, the Government stresses that it has always been the primary task of the Party and its Government to develop good industrial relations between employers and workers in accordance with the principle of tripartism, and to improve the workers' economic, social and cultural conditions. Accordingly it has adopted the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, which guarantees the workers' right to organise, to collective bargaining and to conduct legitimate trade union business without interference. More specifically, it states that the four union leaders were detained not for violating any labour legislation, but under the Preservation of Public Security Act to safeguard the interests of national security. They enjoyed the right to appeal to the courts of law challenging the grounds of detention and had access to their attorneys and families. Moreover, the detaining authorities have an obligation to publish in the official government gazette the name of the detained person and the place of detention.
2. 74. According to the Government, the detained labour leaders did appeal to the High Court against the detention orders: Frederik Chiluba won his appeal and was released on 28 October 1981; Mr. Zimba's appeal was to be heard on 9 November and judgement in the cases of Messrs. Sampa and Walamba was to be delivered on 13 November 1981. Lastly, the Government states that the industrial relations scene in Zambia is now peaceful and there is goodwill between the labour movement and the Government. It points out that during the detention of the four labour leaders, all 18 national industrial trade unions, including the Zambia Congress of Trade unions, operated normally and that the dialogue between the labour leaders and the Government continues unimpeded.
3. 75. In its letter of 25 November 1981, the Government states that Mr. Zimba was released by the High Court on 9 November and was allowed to attend the November Session of the Governing Body. On 13 November 1981 the remaining detained leaders, Messrs. Sampa and Walamba, were also released by the High Court. According to the Government, the release of the detained trade union leaders testifies to Zambia's respect for the rule of law, fundamental human rights and democracy.

C. The complainant's further communication

1. 76. On 8 April 1982 the ICFTU withdrew its complaint in view of the release of the trade union leaders on the basis of the Zambian High Court's rulings. In doing so, the ICFTU trusted that the release was final and that there would be no repercussions for the persons concerned in their professional careers and trade union functions.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 77. This case concerns the arrest of four named trade union leaders, who, after almost four months' detention, were released by order of the High Court. The complainant has withdrawn the complaint on the understanding that the persons concerned will suffer no repercussions in their professional careers and trade union functions.
2. 78. In previous cases in which the Committee has been confronted with a request submitted to it for the withdrawal of a complaint, it has considered that the desire expressed by an organisation which has submitted a complaint to withdraw this complaint constitutes an element of which full account should be taken, but it is not sufficient in itself for the Committee to automatically cease to proceed further with the case. In such cases, the Committee has decided that it alone is competent to evaluate in full freedom the reasons put forward to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to endeavour to establish whether these appear to be sufficiently plausible so that it may be concluded that the withdrawal is being made in full independence. In this connection, the Committee has noted that there might be cases in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it was the result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal. In the present case the Committee notes that the situation which prompted the complaint no longer exists, that is to say that the arrested trade union leaders have been released. It also notes the complainant's statement of trust that the release is final and that the persons concerned will suffer no repercussions. It accordingly considers that the request for withdrawal has been made in full independence and hopes that the trade union situation will continue favourably.

The Committee's recommendations

• Recommendations of the Committee
  79. 79 In these circumstances, noting that the complainant withdraws the complaint on the understanding that the persons concerned will suffer no repercussions in their professional careers and trade union functions, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.