Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

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

Preliminary observation regarding compulsory prison labour for prisoners convicted for political offences. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 90 of Decree No. 63-103 establishing the organization and rules of penitentiary establishments, work is compulsory for all convicts, regardless of the nature of the offence for which they were convicted. The Government refers in its report to section 18 of the Penal Code under which political prisoners are not subject to compulsory work. The Committee points out in this connection that, although men serving sentences for criminal offences are employed on the most arduous works of public utility, persons serving sentences for criminal political offences are separated from ordinary prisoners and are not subject to compulsory work (sections 17 and 18 of the Penal Code). This is not the case for persons serving correctional sentences, who are subject to a general obligation to work since they may be employed on all tasks according to section 24.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the political, social or economic system. It emphasized that it is often in the exercise of the rights of assembly, expression, demonstration and the right to organize that political opposition to the established order is expressed. It drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions in the legislation regulating the exercise of these rights under which penalties of imprisonment may be imposed, namely:

–           section 169 of the Penal Code under which a prison term of from three to six months may be imposed for insulting an official, a public officer or a citizen entrusted with a public function;

–           sections 54–61 of Act No. 98-23 amending Act No. 97-26 on the freedom of the press, which provide for prison terms of varying lengths for defamation;

–           sections 2 and 23 of Ordinance No. 84-6 of 1 March 1984 regulating associations. Under section 23, participation in the creation and/or administration of an undeclared association is punishable by a prison term ranging from one month to one year. According to section 2, any association founded for a cause or purpose which is contrary to the laws or regulations in force or offends against morality, or for the purpose of breaching the peace or the territorial integrity of the nation, or for a purpose which conflicts with the form of government, shall automatically be null and void. Section 2 furthermore prohibits regional or ethnic associations.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, no one has been convicted for the abovementioned offences concerning insult of public officials, libel in the press or the creation of an unlawful association. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical effect given to the abovementioned provisions (number of persons sentenced under them, nature of the penalties imposed, number of associations dissolved or prohibited). Please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

The Committee also takes due note of the fact that the Government has set up a committee to prepare texts on the decriminalization of offences against the press law. It hopes that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Committee is able to conclude its work as soon as possible. The Committee is the more insistent on the need to abolish criminal penalties and, first and foremost, the prison sentences for press offences that it observes that the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection on the right to freedom of opinion and expression has already had occasion to ask the Government to respond to allegations relating to prison sentences for insult or defamation imposed on journalists or other information workers exercising their freedom of opinion or expression (see inter alia documents E/CN.4/2006/55/Add.1 and A/HRC/4/27/Add.1).

Article 1(d). Imposition of prison sentences involving an obligation to work as punishment for participation in strikes. In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to review its legislation in so far as public employees breaching provisions on the exercise of the right to strike may be punished by prison sentences involving compulsory prison labour. Section 9 of Ordinance No. 96-009 of 21 March 1996, regulating the exercise of the right to strike of state officials and officials of territorial communities, provides that a minimum service must be ensured for vital and/or strategic state services. An official called on to provide a minimum service must do so and, in exceptional cases, such officials may be requisitioned. The Committee has been asking the Government for many years, in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which Niger has also ratified, to amend this provision so as to “restrict its scope only to cases in which work stoppages are likely to provoke an acute national crisis, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to essential services in the strict sense of the term”. The Committee has likewise noted that Ordinance No. 96-010 of 21 March 1996 setting forth a list of strategic and/or vital services includes some services that the Committee on Freedom of Association does not deem to be essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee has pointed out that, although the two ordinances do not themselves provide for penalties for breach of their provisions, under section 119(2) of the Penal Code public servants deemed to have abandoned their posts are punished by a prison term ranging from two to five years. To the extent that the provisions on abandonment of post apply to public servants who, in the context of a strike, refuse to provide the minimum service or obey a requisition order, these workers could be sentenced to a prison term in which they could be subjected to compulsory prison labour.

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government states that the list of vital and/or strategic state services requiring maintenance of a minimum service is being revised, under the Committee on the Representativeness of Trade Unions, in the light of ILO criteria. The Committee hopes that, in the context of this revision, and in view of the foregoing comments and those made under Convention No. 87, the Government will amend the provisions of Ordinances Nos 96-009 and 96-010 so as to limit restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike of public servants to essential services in the strict sense of the term, to cases where a work stoppage could cause an acute national crisis or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, no state employees have been punished for refusing to provide a minimum service. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on any penalties imposed on requisitioned public servants who refuse to provide a minimum service in a vital and/or strategic state service. Please indicate in particular whether such employees could be deemed to have abandoned their posts within the meaning of section 119(2) of the Penal Code.