Definitive Report - Report No 90, 1966

Case No 418 (Cameroon) - Complaint date: 26-OCT-64 - Closed

1. 98. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its 40th and 42nd Sessions, held in May 1965 and February 1966 respectively. On those two occasions the Committee submitted interim reports which may be found in paragraphs 324 to 359 of the 83rd Report and paragraphs 264 to 276 of the 87th Report respectively. At its February 1966 session the Committee had submitted to it only one allegation that had remained in suspense-the one referring to the arrest of certain former leaders of the Cameroon Trade Union Confederation (F.S.C.)-the other allegation formulated by the complainants, concerning the circumstances in which the congress of that Federation had taken place in October 1964, having already been the subject of final recommendations by the Committee at its May 1965 session.

99. The complainants alleged that the following trade union leaders had been arrested by the federal police at Douala: Pierre Mandeng, Isaac Tchuisseu, Samuel Moudourou, Adolphe Mouandjo Dicka, Simon Nbock Mabenga and Raphadl Ngamby. Several of these persons were subsequently transferred without trial from their prison to the political detention camp at Tchollire, where they were detained arbitrarily and denied any contact with the outside world. The complainants pointed out, furthermore, that one of the men concerned, Mr. Raphadl Ngamby, was a Workers' substitute member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office.

1. 100. In a first series of observations, submitted to the Committee at its May 1965 session, the Government declared that the arrest of the persons mentioned by the complainants had been motivated by the discovery at Mr. Ngamby's home of subversive documents likely to endanger the internal security of the State, and was consequently totally unconnected with the trade union membership or activities of those concerned.
2. 101. Considering that this answer was insufficient the Committee, at its session held in May 1965, had recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish more detailed additional information as to the exact reasons for the arrest of the persons concerned and, in particular, as to the precise nature of the documents the possession of which by those persons had, in the Government's view, justified the measures taken against theme
3. 102. These recommendations having been approved by the Governing Body, the request contained therein was made known to the Government, which replied by a communication, dated 2 November 1965 that the Committee considered at its session in February 1966.
4. 103. In its reply the Government merely " solemnly confirms that Raphadl Ngamby and his associates were dealt with according to current national legislation against citizens convicted of subversive activities ". It affirmed that their trade union membership and activities were in no way responsible for those measures and declared that it believed that it had - furnished the Committee with every explanation in this matter which is compatible with the dignity of an independent State ".
5. 104. After taking note of these declarations the Committee, at its session in February 1966, made the following recommendations to the Governing Body, which the latter approved:
6. ... the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
7. (a) to draw the attention of the Government of Cameroon to the resolution concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise adopted by the First African Regional Conference of the International Labour Organisation (Lagos, December 1960), which, in paragraph 7, " Requests the Governing Body of the International Labour Office to invite governments in respect of whose countries complaints may be made to the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association to give their whole-hearted co-operation to that Committee, in particular by replying to requests for observations made to them and by taking the fullest possible account of any recommendations which may be made to them by the Governing Body following examination of such complaints ", and, in paragraph 8, " Requests the Governing Body to accelerate as far as possible the procedure of its Committee on Freedom of Association and to give greater publicity to the conclusions of that Committee ", and to request the Government to be good enough to review the situation in the light of this resolution;
8. (b) to urge the Government once again, bearing in mind the resolution cited in the preceding subparagraph and for the reasons stated in paragraphs 270 and 271 above, to be good enough firstly, to furnish more detailed additional information as to the exact reasons for the arrest of the persons mentioned in the complaint and, in particular, as to the precise nature of the documents the possession of which by those persons has, in the Government's view, justified the measures taken against them, and, secondly, to indicate whether the trade unionists mentioned in the complaint have been or are going to be tried with all the safeguards of regular judicial procedure and, if so, to communicate the text of the judgments given and the grounds therefor;
9. (c) to express the hope once again that Mr. Ngamby's status as member of the Governing Body will receive due consideration in the light of the Government's obligations under article 40 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, according to which members of the Governing Body shall, as such, enjoy " such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organisation ", and of the importance attached by the Governing Body and the Conference to the discharge of these obligations.
10. ......................................................................................................................................................
11. 105. At its session held in February 1966 the Committee had also had placed before it a communication dated 5 November 1965 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.), which alleged that the trade union leaders in question were denied the right to be visited by their families, refused medical supplies and forced to make their own arrangements to have food brought in to them; and that even then their guards deliberately delayed the distribution of parcels.
12. 106. Noting that the Government, to which the text of that communication had been transmitted, had not yet furnished its observations thereon, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to urge the Government to be good enough to furnish those observations.
13. 107. This request, together with the conclusions quoted in paragraph 104 above, having been brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 2 March 1966, the Government replied by two communications dated 14 March and 3 May respectively.
14. 108. In its further observations the Government " solemnly reaffirms " that the reason for the arrest of the persons mentioned by the complainants was that documents had been found in their possession which had no relation to their trade union activities but showed that they were liable to endanger public order. The Government stresses that " in view of the nature of the said documents and the requirements of the internal and external security of the State, it would not be desirable to communicate the documents to any person or body whatsoever " and it " therefore regrets that it is unable to defer, on this point, to the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association ".
15. 109. The Government goes on to state that Mr. Ngamby and the other trade union leaders mentioned in the complaints had, like other Cameroon citizens, been dealt with " by measures called for by the incompatibility of their behaviour with the higher interests of the country ". It points out that certain trade union members and leaders, including Mr. Moudourou were released shortly after their arrest in view of the fact that the charges brought against them were not very serious.
16. 110. As regards having the persons concerned brought to trial, the Government states that this procedure is not contemplated by the Ordinance of 4 October 1961 respecting the state of emergency, under which the persons concerned were required to take up supervised residence. The Government further points out that those measures were preventive ones and necessary for the maintenance of public order; it stresses the fact that the persons in question had had no charges brought against them and had not been imprisoned but simply placed in compulsory residence as a precaution.
17. 111. The Government goes on to state that "as for bearing in mind, in the light of article 40 of the Constitution of the I.L.O, the fact that Mr. Raphadl Ngamby is a member of the Governing Body, [it] considers that the privileges and immunities deriving therefrom cannot be invoked save where the acts committed by the person in question are related to the responsibilities and attributions which accrue to him in his twofold character as trade union leader and member of the Governing Body of the I.L.O.". Now, " the Government has never ceased to affirm that those acts had nothing whatsoever to do with such attributions, so that the privileges and immunities in question cannot possibly be invoked in the present case ".
18. 112. The Government's reply then deals with the allegations contained in the communication from the I.C.F.T.U dated 5 November 1965. As regards the allegations that the persons concerned were denied the right to be visited, the Government affirms that all prisoners are entitled to be visited and that the prison authorities give the necessary authorisation as a matter of course; this applies even more strongly to persons in compulsory residence.
19. 113. As regards the allegation that parcels sent to the prisoners by post were deliberately delayed, the Government explains that, because of the distance that separates the camp of Tchollire from the parts of the country from which those persons come (in the south), and the condition of the roads, parcels sent by post may take as much as two weeks to arrive at their destination. " In the circumstances ", the Government states, " the persons in question may have been led to believe that the delay was the fault of their guards."
20. 114. As regards the allegations concerning the provision of medical supplies and the fact that private arrangements have been made to have food brought, the Government states that these are completely unfounded and points out that persons in compulsory residence are subject to the same rules as prisoners with regard to accommodation, food and health supervision. " They are provided with the same food as persons detained in ordinary prisons, paid for out of the normal budget allocations set aside for that purpose. They are under medical supervision, receive on-the-spot medical care and supplies called for by their state of health and are, if necessary, evacuated to the official health establishment nearest their place of residence."
21. 115. In its observations the Government, as it has already done twice, solemnly affirms that the measures taken in regard to the trade union leaders in question had no connection whatsoever with their trade union membership or activities and were provoked only by political activities contrary to public order in which the individuals in question had engaged, as witness the documents seized at the home of one of them, Mr. Ngamby. The Government, however, states that for reasons of security it cannot reveal the contents of those documents as the Committee had requested.
22. 116. It is not for the Committee to express an opinion on the position adopted by the Government in this connection. The Committee, however, points out that it finds itself, in view of the Government's refusal to comply with the request made to it, in such a position that it cannot determine whether or not there is any connection between the measures taken against the individuals mentioned in this case and the fact that they are trade union leaders or their activities as such.
23. 117. The Committee therefore finds itself compelled to recommend the Governing Body to take note of the allegations made by the complainants concerning the arrest of trade union leaders and the observations furnished thereon by the Government and to express its regret that the Government has not furnished the information requested by the Committee and without which the Committee is not in a position to formulate conclusions on the merits of this aspect of the case.
24. 118. In its observations the Government also states that the interested parties were not detained but simply placed under preventive compulsory residence and that this measure was taken in application of the Ordinance of 4 October 1961 respecting the state of emergency, which does not call for such persons to be brought before a court of law. The Government adds that one of the trade union leaders mentioned in the complaint, Mr. Moudourou, was released shortly after his arrest."

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 119. While noting this last point with satisfaction the Committee nevertheless feels it should submit certain comments suggested to it by the observations of the Government. These show that, first of all, while the persons arrested may not be legally considered as "sentenced to imprisonment " but rather " required to take up compulsory residence under supervision at the Civic Rehabilitation Centre (residence under supervision) ", they are nevertheless deprived of their freedom as a " preventive measure " according to the Government. From the observations of the Government it also appears that by virtue of the Ordinance of 4 October 1961- which is legislation governing exceptional circumstances - the persons concerned will not be brought before a court of law.
2. 120. On these two points, as it has already done on many occasions in the past when trade union leaders have been placed under preventive arrest, the Committee wishes to stress that preventive detention measures can constitute serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights and that, in order to avoid this, such measures should be taken only when justified by a serious situation; it also wishes to stress the danger that detention measures taken against trade union leaders can represent for the right to organise if-as appears to be the case in the present situation, thanks to a law of exception-they are not accompanied by appropriate judiciary safeguards.
3. 121. The Committee therefore feels that it should recommend the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that all governments should make it their duty to ensure that human rights are respected, in particular the right of prisoners to be brought to trial in the shortest possible time before an impartial and independent judiciary authority; the Governing Body should also express the hope that the Government will feel it is able to take these principles into account in the case of trade union leaders still in detention.
4. 122. As regards the subsidiary allegations contained in the communication from the I.C.F.T.U dated 5 November 1965, which contains only a series of affirmations, the Committee notes that the Government meets these affirmations with fairly detailed information concerning the conditions under which the individuals in question are kept in compulsory residence.
5. 123. In the circumstances, considering that the complainants have not brought sufficient proof in support of the claims they put forward, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not warrant further examination on its part.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 124. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, for the reasons given in paragraph 123 above, that the allegations contained in the communication dated 5 November 1965 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions do not call for further examination on its part;
   • (b) to take note of the allegations made by the complainants concerning the arrest of trade union leaders and the Government's observations thereon, and to express its regret that the Government has not furnished the information requested by the Committee and without which the Committee is not in a position to formulate conclusions on the merits of this aspect of the case;
   • (c) to draw the Government's attention, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 119 and 120 above, to the fact that every government should make it its duty to ensure that human rights are respected, in particular the right of prisoners to be brought to trial in the shortest possible time before an impartial and independent judiciary authority;
   • (d) to express the hope that the Government will find itself able to take into account the principles set forth in subparagraph (c) above in the case of trade union leaders still in detention.