Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - United Republic of Tanzania (Ratification: 1962)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to its earlier comments, including copies of various legislative texts. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the following points.

I.  Tanzanian mainland

For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions under which forced or compulsory labour may be imposed under circumstances falling within Article 1(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention.

Article 1(a). 1. Under section 25 of the Newspaper Act, 1976, the President may, if he considers it necessary in the public interest or in the interests of peace and order, prohibit the further publication of any newspaper; printing, publishing, selling or distribution of such newspaper being punishable by imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour). Under sections 6, 8, 9(a), 12(i) and (ii), and 19 to 21 of the Societies Ordinance, administrative authorities enjoy discretionary powers to refuse or cancel the registration of societies, participation in an unregistered society being punishable by imprisonment.

The Government indicates in its reports received in 2001 and 2002, referring also to a statement by the Government representative during the discussion at the Conference Committee in 2000, that, following the establishment of multipartism, there has been a process of political reform in the United Republic of Tanzania, with the result that contrary views of individuals are not punished, except those which fall under accepted exceptions to the Convention. As regards the Societies Ordinance, the Government confirms its previous statement that it ceased to apply to political parties, which are now dealt with under the Political Parties Act, 1992. The Government reiterates that the abovementioned provisions of the Newspaper Act and the Societies Ordinance will be reconsidered in the course of the new labour policy and legislation reform in order to be brought into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee has taken due note of these indications. It hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future in order to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. It also hopes that the Government will describe in detail the new policy regarding the formation of societies, to which reference has been made in the report, and requests the Government to supply copies of relevant texts.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee asked the Government to provide copies of any provisions adopted pursuant to paragraph 56 of the First Schedule to section 118(4) of the Local Government (District Authorities) Act, 1982, prohibiting, regulating or controlling meetings and other assemblies (i.e. copies of any by-laws on these matters). The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that no such provisions had been adopted to this effect. It would be grateful if, in its future reports, the Government would supply information on any changes in the position.

Article 1(b). 3. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested information on the practical application of section 89(c) of the Penal Code (concerning certain offences in connection with self-help schemes), such as the number of convictions for offences thereunder and the particulars of any court decisions which may define or illustrate their effect or scope. The Committee has noted the explanations concerning the scope of this section contained in the Government’s report on Convention No. 29 and in the statement by the Government representative in the course of the discussion at the Conference Committee in 2000. It has also noted the Government’s indication in its 2001 and 2002 reports that research concerning the court decisions in question is subject to availability of resources and that no such research has been conducted to date. The Committee hopes that the information requested will be communicated by the Government as soon as such research is conducted.

Article 1(b) and (c). 4. The Committee previously noted that, under section 176(9) of the Penal Code, any person employed under lawful employment of any description who is, without lawful excuse, found "engaged in a frolic of his own" at a time he is supposed to be engaged in activities connected or relating to the business of his employment may be punished with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work). Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 45 to 48 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that provisions under which idle and disorderly persons may be punished for the mere fact of not engaging in socially useful work are incompatible with both the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and Article 1(b) of the abolition of forced labour Convention. Moreover, it would appear that section 176(9) of the Penal Code is primarily applicable to persons who are under lawful employment but are absent from work; the imposition of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour on such persons falls within the scope of Article 1(c) of the Convention, which prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

The Government indicates in its 2001 and 2002 reports that the existence of such provisions has to be viewed in relation to the special circumstances of the economy at the time of the ratification of the Convention, and that, in the light of the current changes, these provisions will be re-examined in the course of the labour law reform.

The Committee reiterates its hope that appropriate measures will be taken by the Government in order to repeal or amend these provisions, and that, pending their repeal or amendment, the Government will continue to provide information on their application in practice.

Article 1(c). 5. In its earlier comments the Committee referred to section 284A of the Penal Code, under which any employee of a specified authority who causes pecuniary loss to his employer or damage to his employer’s property, by any wilful act or omission, negligence or misconduct, or failure to take reasonable care or to discharge his duties in a reasonable manner, may be punished with imprisonment for up to two years. The Committee also noted that section 284A of the Penal Code had been repealed by section 63 of Act No. 13 of 1984, as well as the Government’s indication in its earlier report that the substance of this section is contained in the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act. The Committee has noted that section 11 of the First Schedule to the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, 1984 ("Economic offences") contains provisions similar to those of the repealed section 284A of the Penal Code, and the offences prescribed in this Schedule are punishable with imprisonment (which involves an obligation to work) (section 59(2) of the Act). While having previously noted the Government’s statement that these provisions are more of a preventive rather than punitive nature and there are few convictions made thereunder, the Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, any measures taken or contemplated to repeal or amend the abovementioned provisions of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, 1984, in order to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

Article 1(c) and (d). 6. The Committee previously noted that, under sections 145(1)(b), (c) and (e) and 147 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1967, various breaches of discipline by seamen are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour). Under section 151, any seaman who deserts from a foreign ship may be forcibly returned on board ship or delivered to the master, mate or owner of the ship or his agent.

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its latest report concerning the submission of proposals to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, which have been prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), for consideration by the meeting of stakeholders with the participation of the government bodies, shipping companies and agencies and seafarers’ unions. The Committee requests the Government to supply, in its next report, information about the outcome of that meeting and expresses strong hope that appropriate measures will be adopted in the near future in order to repeal or amend the provisions in question so as to bring the Merchant Shipping Act into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(d). 7. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that sections 4, 8, 11 and 27 of the Industrial Court of Tanzania Act, 1967, which contained provisions for compulsory arbitration in labour disputes, making it possible in practice to render all strikes illegal and punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour), have been amended by Act No. 2/1993. The Committee has noted, however, that the new section 11A(d) of the Industrial Court of Tanzania Act, as amended by Act No. 2/1993, prohibits striking contrary to the procedure under the Act, violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) (section 12 of the Act).

The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its 2001 and 2002 reports that the question of labour disputes resolution, including the incompatibility of current provisions with the Convention, is going to be considered under the project "A new approach on labour policy and legislative reform". The Committee therefore hopes that appropriate measures will be adopted in regard to these provisions to ensure that, in accordance with the Convention, no form of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) may be imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes.

II.  Zanzibar

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions imposing penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, under section 50 of the Offenders’ Education Act) in the circumstances falling within Article 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention.

Article 1(a). 1. Sections 37 and 38 of the Penal Decree (concerning prohibited publications) and section 41 of the Penal Decree (concerning seditious offences). The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its 2002 report that the Committee’s comments on these provisions will be taken into account in the course of the labour law reform in Zanzibar. It reiterates the hope that the Government will continue to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions, including the number of convictions under these sections, the circumstances in which such offences were committed, and the penalties imposed.

2. Section 4(b) of the Deportation Decree (Cap. 41), concerning restriction orders in respect of persons conducting themselves so as to be dangerous to peace, good order, good government or public morals. The Government indicates in its report that the Committee’s comments on this provision will be taken into account in the course of the labour law reform. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated with a view to repealing section 4(b) of the Deportation Decree (Cap. 41), so as to bring legislation on this point into conformity with the Convention.

3. Sections 55 to 57 of the Penal Decree concerning unlawful societies. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that these sections of the Penal Decree had been repealed by the Society Decree No. 20 of 1963, which had been itself repealed by the Afro Shirazi Party Decree No. 11 of 1965, which in turn had been repealed by Decree No. 3 of 1980. It again requests the Government to provide copies of the repealing Decrees.

Article 1(c). 4. Sections 110 and 110A of the Penal Decree concerning neglect of duty by persons employed in the public service and employees of a "specified authority" who cause pecuniary loss to their employer or damage to their employer’s property, by any wilful act or omission, negligence or misconduct, or failure to take reasonable care or to discharge their duties in a reasonable manner. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that while the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that are committed either in the exercise of functions which are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health is in danger, the scope of sections 110 and 110A of the Penal Decree is wider and provides for breaches of labour discipline conducive to pecuniary losses to be punished with penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its report that the Committee’s comments on these sections will be taken into account in the course of the labour law reform and reiterates its hope that these provisions would be re-examined in the light of the above explanations in order to ensure compliance with the Convention.

5. Section 3 of the Zanzibar Governing Shipping Decree (Cap. 141) concerning certain disciplinary offences by seamen. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that there have been no convictions under this provision. It hopes that the Government will continue to provide, in its future reports, information on any application of this provision in practice.