Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 131, 1972

Caso núm. 591 (Senegal) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 09-JUL-69 - Cerrado

1. 30. The last occasion on which the Committee considered this matter was its 59th Session (Geneva, 8 November 1971), when it submitted the interim report appearing in its 127th Report (paragraphs 158 to 197) to the Governing Body. This report was adopted by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (November 1971).
2. 31. Senegal has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 87).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 32. When it last considered this matter, the Committee had in the first place recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to indicate whether the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants as having been arrested had been tried and, if so, to indicate the nature of the court which had heard the case; it also recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to forward the text of the judgement pronounced together with the grounds adduced therefor.
2. 33. In the second place, the Committee had recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government for its comments on the following allegations made by the complainants:
   • (a) the expulsion of the complainant organisation (the former UNTS) by the armed forces from its premises at 24, rue Armand-Angrand, " with the complicity of Alioune Cissé, even though under the regulations in force and under the terms of our lease we should have had six months' notice ";
   • (b) the pressure brought to bear upon estate agents and upon individuals to prevent the complainant organisation from obtaining premises;
   • (c) the pressure brought to bear by the Principal Private Secretary to the President of the Republic upon the owner (a citizen of Mauritania) of the premises occupied by the complainant organisation at 48, rue Vincens and the threats made to expel him from Senegal if he did not evict this organisation;
   • (d) the pressure brought to bear upon the judiciary, through the intermediary of the government Attorney-General, in order to prevent bank workers " unlawfully dismissed for striking from receiving what they are entitled to ";
   • (e) the prohibition against celebrating 1 May 1970;
   • (f) the daily interference with the exercise of trade union rights, for instance by prohibiting the election of representatives and banning meetings at workplaces.
3. 34. In a letter dated 24 November 1971 the Government was asked to provide information about the points mentioned in the previous two paragraphs. On 4 February 1972 it answered by a communication which arrived too late for the Committee to consider it in substance at its 60th Session (February 1972).
4. 35. In answer to the request mentioned in paragraph 32 above, the Government declares that the trade unionists in question were arrested, not because of acts connected with trade union activities, but for having " acted or manoeuvred in such a way as to compromise public order or to cause serious political disorders, to discredit the country's political institutions or their functioning and to break the law of the land ", that is to say, for having committed political offences provided for and punished under the Criminal Code.
5. 36. The Government points out that the organ which tried these men was the special tribunal set up by Act No. 61-57 (21 September 1961), to which the following types of case may be referred: (a) crimes and offences against the internal and external security of the State provided for in the Penal Code; (b) political crimes and offences and related common law crimes and offences; (c) common law crimes and offences prompted wholly or in part by political motives. The Government indicates that the persons concerned were sentenced by this court at a public hearing held on 19 and 20 July 1971 and, as requested, attaches to its reply a text of the judgement and the grounds adduced therefor.
6. 37. From this text, it appears that the following persons were committed for trial: Abdoulaye Thiaw, Iba Der Thiam, Ousmane Top, Demba Sall Niang, Abdoulaye Gueye, Bakhao Seck, Assane Diagne, Babacar Sane, Ousmane Diallo and M'Baba Guisse. All were accused of having committed acts or manoeuvres likely to jeopardise public safety or to cause serious political disorders, to discredit the country's political institutions or their functioning, and to break the law of the land.
7. 38. From the grounds adduced for the judgement it appears that " it is apparent from the files that on the occasion of a search undertaken on 20 January 1971 in the offices of the premises of the former UNTS the police discovered material and various documents, notably two statements, one from the national office, dated 2 January 1971, and the other from the regional office, dated 13 January 1971, the first being entitled The UNTS is on the Lookout and the second For Radical Revolutionary Trade Union Action " and that "these documents, mimeographed and circulated, show that their authors have extended trade union action into the political field, the object being to plunge the existing political system into disorder ".
8. 39. The decisions of the Tribunal concerning the persons concerned were as follows: Abdoulaye Thiaw, Iba Der Thiam and M'Baba Guisse were sentenced to three years' imprisonment; Ousmane Diallo to two years; Bakhao Seek to ten months; Ousmane Top to eight months; Demba Sall Niang to a 25,000 francs fine; Babacar Sane to a fine of 20,000 francs. Assane Diagne and Abdoulaye Gueye were acquitted.
9. 40. In its reply the Government says that, as an act of mercy, the trade unionists thus condemned were pardoned by Decrees Nos. 71-1079, 71-1080, 71-1081, 71-1082 and 71-1083 (7 October 1971) and the officials reinstated in their posts under Decisions 14,049 (13 November 1971), 731 and 732 (29 January 1972), issued by the Minister of Labour, the Civil Service and Employment.
10. 41. The Committee regrets that it has not been informed about the substance of the texts on the basis of which certain of these people were sentenced. Hence it cannot reach its conclusions on the matter in full knowledge of the facts. However, since the condemned men have since been pardoned, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that no purpose would be served in pursuing this aspect of the case any further.
11. 42. As regards the matters referred to in paragraph 33 (a) above, the Government maintains that to talk of " expulsion " from trade union premises is incorrect, and provides the following explanation: following a split in the former UNTS, the splinter group led by Mr. Alioune Cissé had denounced the contract of lease which the latter had himself signed as General Secretary of the organisation, and ordered that the premises at 24 rue Armand Angrand be closed, having paid the owner of the building a sum equivalent to the six months of rental in arrears. " This decision, " the Government states " having caused a reaction among Abdoulaye Thiaw's friends, the police concerned themselves solely with maintaining order on the public highway, and especially in the vicinity of the premises, so as to prevent any confrontation. Hence, the aim of the police was not to expel either of the two opposing factions."
12. 43. As regards the allegations set forth under paragraph 33 (b) (c) and (d) (pressure brought to bear by the Government against individuals and bodies), the Government declares that the accusations are slanderous and unsupported by evidence. The Government of Senegal, it states, respectful of individual liberties, is unaware of such events as those mentioned by the complainants. With regard to the judicial organs and their functioning, the Government states that Senegal attaches importance to the principle of the separation of powers, as laid down in the National Constitution, and affirms that the independence of the courts is a reality. Moreover, the Government adds, the court to which individual labour disputes are referred is a composite body made up of a magistrate, two employer assessors and two worker assessors; no ministry is represented therein. " The complainants, " states the Government " who know the law on the matter, could have had but one aim, namely to bring Senegalese institutions into discredit ".
13. 44. As regards the alleged ban on May Day celebrations (see paragraph 33 (e) above), the Government states that 1 May 1970 was celebrated in Senegal by all the trade union organisations, embracing almost the whole of the working class. On this occasion, continues the Government, the authorities did nothing to hamper the arrangements made for that day, during which the traditional bill of claims and complaints was handed to the President of the Republic.
14. 45. As regards the allegations mentioned under paragraph 33"(f) above (bans on the election of staff delegates and on meetings held in places of work), the Government provides the following explanation.
15. 46. In May 1968 there were grave disturbances in Senegal and the first six months of 1969 were marked by a certain amount of popular discontent. Thereafter, it was necessary to suspend temporarily anything which might lead to clashes or to further disturbances in the labour sphere; the Government states that the election of staff delegates during a period of unrest can cause clashes which may induce further disorders. Accordingly, continues the Government, with a view to the gradual re-establishment of order, it was decided, for the time being, to suspend the election of staff delegates. The Government points out that this measure, however, affected all trade union federations without discrimination and the staff delegates holding office continued to do so.
16. 47. This ban-the Government goes on to say-was repealed by Circular Letter No. 1031/MFTB/CAB/BEL/T2 (20 February 1970) as soon as the circumstances which had rendered it necessary no longer obtained. Since that time, states the Government (which in this connection quotes certain figures), staff delegate elections have proceeded normally, with all trade union federations taking part, including that splinter group of the former UNTS which had stayed outside the CNTS after the merger, and which is the national complainant organisation in this particular case.
17. 48. As regards meetings in places of work, the Government states that, since an undertaking is private property, it is normal that the employer, and he alone, should be able to authorise them.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 50. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body(a) for the reasons set forth in paragraph 41 above, to decide (subject to the observation made in that same paragraph) that no purpose would be served in pursuing further its examination of the allegations relating to the arrest of trade unionists; and (b) to take note of the explanations provided by the Government concerning the allegations mentioned in paragraph 33 above.