Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Togo (Ratification: 1999)

Preliminary comment on the impact of compulsory prison labour on the Convention. For some years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to forward copies of the implementing decrees provided for under sections 22(2), 26(2) and 35(3) of the Penal Code, regarding prisoners’ working conditions. The Government has consistently replied that no such texts have been adopted. The Committee has inferred from this that even though the texts to implement the above sections of the Penal Code have not been adopted, work may be imposed in practice on prisoners sentenced to reclusion or imprisonment.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in the context of the national programme for modernizing the justice system, the Penal Code was revised and that it is currently before the National Assembly for adoption. The Government adds that in the revised Penal Code, forced labour is prohibited, making way for non-forced labour in prisons, with a view to better reintegration of detainees in society. A copy of the revised Penal Code will be sent once it has been adopted.

The Committee notes this information and hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide information on progress made on the revision of the Penal Code, specifying the new provisions on labour in prisons. In the meantime, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following provisions of the legislation of Togo, which may fall within the scope of certain Articles of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences comprising an obligation to work as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted Act No. 2004-15 of 27 August 2004 amending Act No.98-4 of 11 February 1998 issuing the Media and Communications Code, previously amended in 2000 and 2002. The Committee noted that the Act abolished prison sentences for violations of the provisions respecting the press and offences which may be related to freedom of expression. However, the Committee noted that section 86 of the new Media and Communications Code establishes a penalty of between three months and one year of imprisonment and a fine for any person who, through various means referred to in new section 85, incites the population to violate the laws of the Republic and that, in the event of a second offence, double the maximum penalty may be imposed.

In the absence of information on this matter, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how the provisions are applied, in practice, providing copies of court decisions made on the basis of section 86 of the 2004 Media and Communications Code.

The Committee also referred to section 25 of Act No. 91-4 of 12 April 1991 issuing the Charter of Political Parties, under the terms of which “any person who leads or runs a political party in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be liable to imprisonment of from three to 12 months and a fine of from 100,000 to 500,000 CFA francs, or one of these two penalties only”. The Committee noted the information that this section had not been applied so far.

In the absence of information on this matter, the Committee reiterates the hope that the Government will take measures with a view to repealing the above section. It requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

The Committee also drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions in the Penal Code, providing for prison sentences including an obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice.

• – section 182(1), which provides that “whoever participates on the public highway in a procession, gathering or any other demonstration impeding the public traffic, without having received prior administrative authorization, shall be punished with a fine of from 2,000 to 30,000 francs”, read together with section 36, under which “in case of failure to pay the police fine within the allotted time, the fine may be replaced by penal labour at the rate of one day’s work for a 500 franc fine”;
• – section 182(2), which provides that “the organizers of unauthorized demonstrations on the public thoroughfare, even if they have not themselves participated in the demonstrations, shall be punished with one to six months of imprisonment and a fine of from 20,000 to 100,000 francs, or one of these two penalties only”, also read together with section 36; and
• – section 217, which provides that “whoever has participated in a concerted work stoppage outside the current regulations shall be punished with from one to 20 days of penal labour or a 2,000 to 30,000 franc fine” (subsection 1), and that “the organizers of the concerted work stoppage shall be punished with between one and six months of imprisonment” (subsection 2).

Noting the absence of any information on this matter in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how the above provisions are applied in practice. Please provide copies of the court decisions handed down in this connection.

Article 1(d) and (e). Imposition of prison sentences including an obligation to work as a punishment for having participated in strikes and as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to a number of provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association, providing for prison sentences including the obligation to work in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice.

• – section 8(1), which provides that “any person who has contravened the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with a 16 to 200 franc fine and, in the event of a second offence, with a double fine”, and which concerns the formalities for prior declaration, changes that have occurred in an association’s administration or management, and modifications that have been made to their statutes, read together with section 36 of the Penal Code;
• – section 8(2), which provides that “the founders, directors or administrators of an association which has been illegally maintained or reconstituted after the judgment of dissolution shall be punished with a fine of from 16 to 5,000 francs and six days to one year of imprisonment” and section 8(3), which provides that “any persons who have facilitated meetings of members of the dissolved association by granting them the use of premises available to them shall be liable to the same penalty”;
• – section 15, which makes the penalties established in section 8(2) applicable to the representatives or directors of a religious congregation who have not complied with the provisions concerning the keeping of a list of the congregation members and the presentation of such a list at the request of the prefect.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the various violations of the above provisions are settled out of court in the context of dialogue and cooperation. Noting that the above provisions of the Act of 1 July 1901 respecting contracts of association provide for prison sentences involving an obligation to work in circumstances that may fall within the scope of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application in practice of these provisions, and on any court decisions based thereon.