Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Botswana (Ratification: 1997)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions 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 noted that a number of provisions of the Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views. It referred to offences under sections 47 and 48 (publications prohibited by the President as being “contrary to the public interest”), 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) (seditious offences; raising discontent or disaffection amongst the inhabitants being considered a seditious intention), 66–68 (managing or being a member of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”) of the Penal Code which may be punished with sentences of imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, pursuant to section 92 of the Prisons Act, Cap 21:03 of 1979.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that consultations are under way to review the Constitution, to inform the Government of the legislation requiring alignment with the Constitution, including the Penal Code. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend sections 47, 48, 51(1)(c), (d) and (2), sections 66–68, as well as sections 74 and 75 of the Penal Code, so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the expression of political views or views opposed to the established system, for example by restricting the scope of application of these provisions to situations of violence, incitement to violence, or engagement in preparatory acts aimed at violence. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the developments made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) provides for penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour for any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such breach affects the operation of essential services. The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. Penalties involving compulsory labour could only be held compatible with the Convention when applied to breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, in the strict sense of the term. The Committee observed in that regard that the list of essential services specified in the Trade Disputes Act was not limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the list of essential services under the Trade Disputes Act has been amended by the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2019. It notes with interest the fact that the list of essential services has been reduced and that services such as diamond sorting, cutting and selling services; teaching services; government broadcasting services; the Bank of Botswana; vaccine laboratory services; railways operation and maintenance services; immigration and customs services; transportation and distribution services of petroleum products; sewerage services; and public veterinary services have been removed from the list. The Committee refers in this regard to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rights to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 92 of the Prisons Act, Cap 21:03 of 1979, may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”. Similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. Sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages, or is a member, or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”. In this connection, the Committee observed that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take appropriate measures, on the occasion of the revision of the Penal Code, to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement, in its report, that no amendment to the Penal Code is planned. It wishes to recall once again that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, of persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken without delay, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system, either by restricting the scope of application of these provisions to situations of violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory prison labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the developments made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) punishes with imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such breach affects the operation of essential services. The Committee observed that the list of essential services specified in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act includes services such as the Bank of Botswana, railway services, and transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of all these services, which did not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the list of essential services is going to be reviewed by a task force which has been established for this purpose, within the framework of the ongoing labour law review process. The Committee also notes, referring to its comments made in 2017 under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that the Trade Disputes Act has been amended in 2016, in response to new developments and the specific circumstances in the country. It notes that the list of essential services was thus expanded to include teaching services, veterinary services and diamond sorting, cutting and selling services. Referring to its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions (paragraph 311), the Committee points out that essential services should be understood in the strict sense of the term, that is services, the interruption of which may endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population, and observes that the aforementioned essential services do not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures, in the framework of the current labour law review process, to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline affecting the operation of essential services that do not meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 92 of the Prisons Act, Cap 21:03 of 1979, may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”. Similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. Sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages, or is a member, or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”. In this connection, the Committee observed that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take appropriate measures, on the occasion of the revision of the Penal Code, to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement, in its report, that no amendment to the Penal Code is planned. It wishes to recall once again that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, of persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken without delay, in both law and practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system, either by restricting the scope of application of these provisions to situations of violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory prison labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the developments made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) punishes with imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such breach affects the operation of essential services. The Committee observed that the list of essential services specified in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act includes services such as the Bank of Botswana, railway services, and transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of all these services, which did not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the list of essential services is going to be reviewed by a task force which has been established for this purpose, within the framework of the ongoing labour law review process. The Committee also notes, referring to its comments made in 2017 under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that the Trade Disputes Act has been amended in 2016, in response to new developments and the specific circumstances in the country. It notes that the list of essential services was thus expanded to include teaching services, veterinary services and diamond sorting, cutting and selling services. Referring to its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions (paragraph 311), the Committee points out that essential services should be understood in the strict sense of the term, that is services, the interruption of which may endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population, and observes that the aforementioned essential services do not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures, in the framework of the current labour law review process, to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline affecting the operation of essential services that do not meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2014.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 92 of the Prisons Act, Cap 21:03 of 1979) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”. Similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. Sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages, or is a member, or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”. In this connection, the Committee observed that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the event of future amendments to the Penal Code, consideration may be given to the comments made by the Committee with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, of persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that appropriate measures will be taken, on the occasion of a future revision of the Penal Code, in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, either by limiting their scope to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (for example, fines), so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) punishes with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such breach affects the operation of essential services. The Committee observed that the list of essential services specified in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act includes services (such as the Bank of Botswana, railway services, and transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of all these services) which do not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement that consultations with the social partners on this matter are still ongoing. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the Trade Disputes Act referred to above (for example, by removing the penalty of imprisonment or by reducing the list of essential services to a strict minimum, in accordance with the above criteria), so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 92 of the Prisons Act, Cap 21:03 of 1979) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”. Similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. Sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages, or is a member, or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”. In this connection, the Committee observed that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the event of future amendments to the Penal Code, consideration may be given to the comments made by the Committee with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, of persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that appropriate measures will be taken, on the occasion of a future revision of the Penal Code, in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, either by limiting their scope to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (for example, fines), so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) punishes with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such breach affects the operation of essential services. The Committee observed that the list of essential services specified in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act includes services (such as the Bank of Botswana, railway services, and transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of all these services) which do not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement that consultations with the social partners on this matter are still ongoing. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the Trade Disputes Act referred to above (for example, by removing the penalty of imprisonment or by reducing the list of essential services to a strict minimum, in accordance with the above criteria), so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment (which, under section 125 of the Prison Regulations, involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”.

Recalling 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, the Committee observes that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views and therefore are incompatible with the convention. Noting the Government’s repeated indication that the above provisions of the Penal Code have not been applied in practice, the Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, in order to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any willful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such a breach results in a deprivation of the public of an essential service or in substantial diminishing of the enjoyment of such service by the public.

The Committee observed that some of the services listed in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act (such as the Bank of Botswana, operational and maintenance services of the railways, transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of the above services) do not seem to meet the criteria of essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population).

The Government indicates in its report that consultation have been held with the social partners on the amendment of the list of the essential services and that the Government is still consulting on this issue. The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act referred to above (e.g. by reducing the list of essential services to a strict minimum, in accordance with the above criteria), in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”.

The Committee recalled 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. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed 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 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.

While having noted the Government’s repeated indication that the above provisions of the Penal Code have not been applied in practice, the Committee expresses the hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, in order to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such a breach results in a deprivation of the public of an essential service or in substantial diminishing of the enjoyment of such service by the public.

The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 175 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). However, some of the services listed in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act (such as the Bank of Botswana, operational and maintenance services of the railways, transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of the above services) do not seem to satisfy these criteria.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that consultation with the social partners is ongoing with a view to amend the essential services schedule. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act referred to above (e.g. by reducing the list of essential services to a strict minimum), in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the legislative texts communicated by the Government. It notes, however, that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. The Committee hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”.

The Committee recalled 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. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed 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 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.

While having noted the Government’s repeated indication that the above provisions of the Penal Code have not been applied in practice, the Committee expresses the hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, in order to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such a breach results in a deprivation of the public of an essential service or in substantial diminishing of the enjoyment of such service by the public.

The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 175 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). However, some of the services listed in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act (such as the Bank of Botswana, operational and maintenance services of the railways, transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of the above services) do not seem to satisfy these criteria.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that consultation with the social partners is ongoing with a view to amend the essential services schedule. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act referred to above (e.g. by reducing the list of essential services to a strict minimum), in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Communication of texts. The Committee has noted the Public Service Act 1998, and the Public Service Regulations. It again requests the Government to supply copies of laws governing the press and other media; laws governing public assemblies, meetings, marches and demonstrations; and laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66–68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”.

The Committee recalled 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. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed 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 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.

While having noted the Government’s repeated indication that the above provisions of the Penal Code have not been applied in practice, the Committee expresses the hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, in order to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that section 43(1)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such a breach results in a deprivation of the public of an essential service or in substantial diminishing of the enjoyment of such service by the public.

The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 175 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). However, some of the services listed in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act (such as the Bank of Botswana, operational and maintenance services of the railways, transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of the above services) do not seem to satisfy these criteria.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that consultation with the social partners is ongoing with a view to amend the essential services schedule. Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Botswana, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act referred to above (e.g. by reducing the list of essential services to a strict minimum), in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the following legislation: Public Service Act, as amended; laws governing the press and other media; laws governing public assemblies, meetings, marches and demonstrations; and laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President “in his absolute discretion” as being “contrary to the public interest”; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66-68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being “dangerous to peace and order”.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that the above provisions of the Penal Code have not been applied in practice. While noting this indication, the Committee recalls again 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. It also refers in this connection to paragraphs 133-140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite 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 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.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the above Penal Code provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope and indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that section 43(1)(a) of the new Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such a breach results in a deprivation of the public of an essential service or in substantial diminishing of the enjoyment of such service by the public.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. It also refers in this connection to paragraphs 110-116 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). However, some of the services listed in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act (such as the Bank of Botswana, operational and maintenance services of the railways, transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of the above services) do not seem to satisfy these criteria.

Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Botswana, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the above provisions of the Trade Disputes Act (e.g. by amending the list of essential services as indicated above), in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous direct request, and in particular, the adoption of the new Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004), a copy of which was communicated by the Government with its report. The Committee again requests the Government to supply copies of the following legislation: Public Service Act, as amended; laws governing the press and other media; laws governing public assemblies, meetings, marches and demonstrations; and laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President "in his absolute discretion" as being "contrary to the public interest"; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66-68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being "dangerous to peace and order".

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that the above provisions of the Penal Code have not been applied in practice. While noting this indication, the Committee recalls again 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. It also refers in this connection to paragraphs 133-140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite 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 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.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the above Penal Code provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope and indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). The Committee notes that section 43(1)(a) of the new Trade Disputes Act (No. 15 of 2004) makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) any wilful breach of a contract of employment by an employee who is acting either alone or in combination with others, if such a breach results in a deprivation of the public of an essential service or in substantial diminishing of the enjoyment of such service by the public.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. It also refers in this connection to paragraphs 110-116 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). However, some of the services listed in the Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act (such as the Bank of Botswana, operational and maintenance services of the railways, transport and telecommunications services necessary to the operation of the above services) do not seem to satisfy these criteria.

Referring also to its comments made under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Botswana, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to amend the above provisions of the Trade Disputes Act (e.g. by amending the list of essential services as indicated above), in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Trade Disputes Act (Cap. 48:02), which contained provisions punishing the participation in an unlawful industrial action by sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour), has been repealed by the new Trade Disputes Act No. 15 of 2004.

The Committee is addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. 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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the following legislation: Prison Regulations and any other provisions governing the work of prisoners; Public Service Act, as amended; laws governing the press and other media; laws governing public assemblies, meetings, marches and demonstrations; laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee has noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President "in his absolute discretion" as being "contrary to the public interest"; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee has also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66 to 68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being "dangerous to peace and order".

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. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above Penal Code provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and on any measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(d). Referring to its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, also ratified by Botswana, the Committee has noted that, under section 39 of the Trade Disputes Act, participation in an unlawful industrial action is punishable by imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour). The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) and that compensatory guarantees in the form of appropriate alternative procedures are provided.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the following legislation: Prison Regulations and any other provisions governing the work of prisoners; Public Service Act, as amended; laws governing the press and other media; laws governing public assemblies, meetings, marches and demonstrations; laws governing political parties and associations.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee has noted that sentences of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour) may be imposed under sections 47 and 48 of the Penal Code on any person who prints, makes, imports, publishes, sells, distributes or reproduces any publication prohibited by the President "in his absolute discretion" as being "contrary to the public interest"; similar sentences may be imposed under section 51(1)(c), (d) and (2) concerning seditious publications. The Committee has also noted that sentences of imprisonment may also be imposed under sections 66 to 68 of the Penal Code on any person who manages or is a member or in any way takes part in the activity of an unlawful society, particularly of a society declared unlawful as being "dangerous to peace and order".

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. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above Penal Code provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and on any measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Article 1(d). Referring to its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, also ratified by Botswana, the Committee has noted that, under section 39 of the Trade Disputes Act, participation in an unlawful industrial action is punishable by imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour). The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) and that compensatory guarantees in the form of appropriate alternative procedures are provided.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.