Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Gambia (Ratification: 2000)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Criminal Code, which provide for sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour by virtue of section 29(1) of the Criminal Code) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• section 48(1) and (2): possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications;
• section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005: uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publications; possession or importation of seditious publications; and
• section 59(1): publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference, in its report, to two cases, dated December 2010 and January 2012, whereby the accused who was charged with the offence of sedition was sentenced to imprisonment, but subsequently pardoned by the President. The Government indicates that there are no known cases of sedition since December 2016.

The Committee further notes the Government’s information that legislative reforms based on the recommendations of the Truth Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) are underway. According to the Government White Paper on the Report of the TRRC of 25 May 2022, the recommendations for reforming the Criminal Code thereby safeguarding media freedom and freedom of expression and decriminalizing defamation have been accepted by the Government. With regard to sedition, the Government White paper indicates that seditious laws are a necessary part of a nation’s security provided that they are not misused or abused by governments to curtail media freedom or freedom of speech and expression. The Government indicates that the necessary measures will be taken to provide a clearer definition of what constitutes sedition.

The Committee welcomes the information on the reform of the Criminal Code which aims inter alia at decriminalizing defamation and providing a restrictive definition of seditious acts. The Committee also notes from the Criminal Offences Bill of 2020 transmitted by the Government, that sections 48 to 50 continue to make it an offence to import, publish, sell, possess or distribute any prohibited publication (which is contrary to the public interest) punishable with a fine or to imprisonment or to both.

The Committee expresses the hope that, during the process of the legislative reform, the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code on defamation, false statements, seditious words and prohibited publications will be reviewed so as to ensure that no penalty of imprisonment entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any conviction handed down under the above-mentioned provisions of the Criminal Code, indicating the penalties applied and the facts constituting the offence.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. The Committee previously referred to section 113 of the Criminal Code under which public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 of the Criminal Code. The Committee notes in this regard that the Government refers to a case under section 113 of the Criminal Code pertaining to breach of labour discipline by two police officers who were convicted by the High Court and sentenced to pay a fine of 15,000 Gambian dalasi. The Government further indicates that there is no known incident in which section 113 of the Criminal Code has been misused by the State. The Committee also notes that the provisions under section 113 are reproduced under section 106 of the Criminal Offences Bill, 2020. The Committee considers that the provisions of section 113 are worded in terms that are broad enough to raise concerns about their compatibility with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take advantage of the process of revision of the Criminal Code, to ensure that both in law and practice no penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour can be imposed on civil servants for violations of labour discipline. In the meantime, it requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of section 113 of the Criminal Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the following provisions of the Criminal Code, which provide for sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour by virtue of section 29(1) of the Criminal Code in circumstances covered by the Convention:

– section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);

• -section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication); and
• -section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned sections of the Criminal Code.

The Committee notes an absence of information in the Government’s report. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1)and (2), 52(1) and (2), and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. The Committee previously noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who willfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 113.

The Committee notes an absence of information in the Government’s report on this point. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 131 of the Labour Code in order to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. It requested the Government to indicate the sanctions imposed in breach of this section. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is not criminalized. It is a civil relief that can be obtained before the High Court and it may issue injunctions.

Communication of texts. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations; and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2012.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• – section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication); and
• – section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2), 52(1) and (2), and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting. The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally, breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (for example, sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (2007 General Survey on forced labour, paragraph 172). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2012. The Committee also notes that the Government had been requested to provide information to the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference for failure to supply reports and information on the application of ratified Conventions.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• – section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication); and
• – section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2), 52(1) and (2), and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting. The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally, breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (for example, sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (2007 General Survey on forced labour, paragraph 172). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• – section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication); and
• – section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2), 52(1) and (2), and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting. The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally, breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (for example, sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (2007 General Survey on forced labour, paragraph 172). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It expresses concern in this respect. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• – section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication); and
• – section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2), 52(1) and (2), and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting. The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally, breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (e.g. sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (2007 General Survey on forced labour, paragraph 172). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• – section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication); and
• – section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2), 52(1) and (2), and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting. The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally, breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (e.g. sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (2007 General Survey on forced labour, paragraph 172). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• – section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication);
• – section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2); 52(1) and (2)and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting. The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (e.g. sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (2007 General Survey on forced labour, paragraph 172). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour 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 that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

• – section 48(1) and (2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);
• -section 52(1) and (2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication);
• -section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the offences prescribed under the abovementioned provisions are restrictively interpreted and applied. Their application is limited when the threat to the public is real and where there is concrete evidence to suggest that the suspect intended to cause fear or bring harm to the public.

However, the Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of 13 November 2009, that the Human Rights Committee expressed concern that numerous members of the political opposition, independent journalists and human rights defenders had been subjected to arbitrary arrests and periods of detention of varying length, without charges (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 24). The Human Rights Committee also stated that the legislation adopted in 2002, creating a National Media Commission vested with the power to order the detention of journalists, as well as the resort to libel and defamation charges against journalists, was indicative of unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of thought and expression, and of a pattern of harassment of independent media (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 38). This OHCHR compilation further indicates that both the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have raised several cases regarding the detention, without charges, of journalists and staff of non governmental organizations in the country (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 37). Moreover, this OHCHR compilation indicates that, in 2008, the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations Development Group in Gambia stated that the overall human rights situation had deteriorated significantly, particularly with regard to arbitrary arrests and detention, free and fair trials, freedom of expression and of the press, and that that there had been a number of arrests of members of the National Assembly, journalists, prominent civilians and private lawyers (A/HRC/WG.67/GMB/2, paragraph 28).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, and the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. However, the Committee wishes to emphasize that if such restrictions are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such penalties fall within the scope of the Convention.

In light of the above considerations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the application of sections 48(1) and (2); 52(1) and (2)and 59(1) of the Criminal Code in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations and laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement with reference to section 131 of the Labour Act, which concerns secret balloting.

The Committee recalls however, with reference to section 113 of the Criminal Code, that normally, breaches of labour discipline give rise only to disciplinary sanctions or other kinds of sanctions (e.g. sanctions of a monetary character) which do not involve any obligation to perform labour (paragraph 172 of the 2007 General Survey on forced labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain that section 113 is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, it requests the Government to indicate whether section 113 is used in practice, and under which conditions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in industrial actions under section 139(1) is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Communication of texts. The Committee requests the Government to supply, with its next report, a copy of the latest updated and consolidated text of the Criminal Code (Cap. 10 of the Laws of The Gambia) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 12:01), as well as copies of the Prison Rules and any other provisions governing the execution of sentences of imprisonment. Please also communicate copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations; laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 48(1,2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);

–      section 52(1,2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication);

–      section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 48(1,2), 52(1,2) and 59(1) of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. The Committee notes that, under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 113 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in such industrial actions is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, including copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, additional information on the following points.

Communication of texts. The Committee requests the Government to supply, with its next report, a copy of the latest updated and consolidated text of the Criminal Code (Cap. 10 of the Laws of The Gambia) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 12:01), as well as copies of the Prison Rules and any other provisions governing the execution of sentences of imprisonment. Please also communicate copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: laws governing the press and other media; laws governing political parties and associations; laws governing assemblies, meetings and demonstrations; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system  The Committee notes that the following sections of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment which may involve an obligation to perform labour (by virtue of section 29(1)) in circumstances covered by the Convention:

–      section 48(1,2) (possession, importation, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of prohibited publications);

–      section 52(1,2), as amended by Act No. 3 of 2005 (uttering any seditious words; printing, publishing, selling, distribution or reproduction of seditious publication; possession or importation of seditious publication);

–      section 59(1) (publishing or reproduction of false statements, rumours or reports which are likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee points out that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Such views may be expressed orally or through the press or other communications media or through the exercise of the right of association or participation in meetings and demonstrations.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the abovementioned sections 48(1,2), 52(1,2) and 59(1) of the Criminal Code, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention. Please also provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1, subparagraph c. Punishment for breaches of labour discipline in the public service. The Committee notes that, under section 113 of the Criminal Code (neglect of official duty), public servants who wilfully neglect to perform their duty are guilty of a misdemeanour, in which case a punishment of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to perform labour) for a term not exceeding two years may be applied, in accordance with section 34 (general punishment for misdemeanours).

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application of section 113 in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that it is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph d. Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes that, under section 139(1) of the Labour Act, 2007, certain industrial actions which are conducted in breach of procedure are deemed improper and may be prohibited by order of the High Court. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether participation in such industrial actions is punishable with penal sanctions. In the affirmative, please supply a copy of the relevant provisions, as well as information on their application in practice, including copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.