Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 380, Octobre 2016

Cas no 3134 (Cameroun) - Date de la plainte: 01-JUIN -15 - Clos

Allegations: The complainants allege the intimidation, arrest and detention of trade union leaders by the authorities

1. 143. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 1 June 2015 from the National Union of Land Transport Sector Employees (SYNESTER) and the National Union of Professional Drivers and Public Transport Workers (SYNACPROTCAM).
2. 144. The Government sent partial observations in communications dated 14 August and 8 September 2015.
3. 145. Cameroon has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 146. In communications dated 1 June 2015 and 16 March 2016, SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM allege that, after jointly calling a nationwide strike for 5 January 2015, the national President of SYNESTER (Mr Jean Collins Ndefossokeng) and the national President of SYNACPROTCAM (Mr Joseph Deudie) were arrested and detained and the Operations Officer of SYNESTER (Mr Patrice Fioko) was sentenced to six months of pre-trial detention.
2. 147. The strike was called in response to the decision of a tripartite committee comprising representatives of the Ministry of Finance, the Association of Cameroonian Insurance Companies (ASAC) and public transport trade unions, which met on 11 November 2014 (without the participation of SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM), to increase the period covered by the insurance premium from two months to three months as from 1 January 2015. The objections raised by SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM in the media and the call for a strike led the Government to engage in dialogue with the two trade union federations. According to the two complainants, as a result of the government authorities’ assurance that they would attempt to reason with the insurance companies, the two trade union federations suspended their original call to strike.
3. 148. However, on 1 January 2015, the insurers decided to implement the decisions of the tripartite committee. SYNACPROTCAM and SYNESTER then called a nationwide strike by their members as from Monday, 19 January 2015. The complainants maintain that, in response, the Government decided to imprison the leaders of the two trade union federations. On 15 January 2015, the Operations Officer of SYNESTER, Mr Patrice Fioko, was arrested while distributing leaflets in the city of Bafoussam. On 16 January 2015, after the Presidents of SYNESTER (Mr Jean Collins Ndefossokeng) and SYNACPROTCAM (Mr Joseph Deudie) had renewed their call to strike during a radio broadcast, they were arrested and held in administrative detention for 15 days by the police Mobile Intervention Unit (GMI) on accusations of advocacy of a crime, sedition and terrorist activities.
4. 149. Upon his release, the President of SYNESTER immediately went to Bafoussam, where the Operations Officer of SYNESTER was serving six months of pre-trial detention for sedition. When the President of SYNESTER arrived, he spoke with various authorities and explained that Mr Patrice Fioko had simply been carrying out trade union activities. The investigating judge was receptive to these explanations and gave his authorization for the pre-trial detention order to be lifted on 20 February 2015. Mr Patrice Fioko was released on 27 February 2015.
5. 150. Lastly, the complainants report that, during their detention, the leaders of SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM were interrogated in connection with acts of terrorism under the new Act on the Suppression of Terrorism. They recall that article 2, paragraph 2, of the Act establishes that “the death penalty shall be imposed on anyone who, acting alone or as an accomplice or accessory, commits or threatens to commit any act that may cause death, endanger physical safety, result in bodily injury or property damage or harm natural resources, the environment or the cultural heritage with the intention of: (a) intimidating the public, causing a situation of terror or forcing a victim, the Government and/or a national or international organization to carry out or refrain from carrying out a given act, adopt or renounce a particular position or act according to certain principles; (b) disrupting the normal operation of public services or the delivery of essential public services, or creating a public crisis; or (c) creating widespread insurrection in the country. The complainants consider that implementation of the Act on the Suppression of Terrorism makes it impossible to carry out any trade union activities in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

B. The Government’s reply

1. 151. In a communication dated 8 September 2015, the Government provided the following partial explanations regarding the alleged events.
2. 152. The increase in the period covered by the insurance premium was decided by the insurance companies. Prior to this increase, a tripartite committee comprising representatives of workers, insurance companies and the Government was established in the Ministry of Finance with the Government represented by the Ministry. SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM requested to participate in the committee’s work, which was not possible. When the work was completed, the committee published the conclusions of its meetings, the most important of which was an increase in the period covered by the insurance premium that was immediately challenged by the complainants. When it learned of this situation, the Government, through the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, met with the leaders and members of the trade union federations. The Director of Industrial Relations, on behalf of the Minister of Labour, invited the various trade unions to reach agreement through a formal consensus, which, owing to differences in the parties’ interests, they had been unable to do in the past. The Government indicates that the payment of insurance premiums is the responsibility of employers and does not fall within the scope of workers’ trade union activities.
3. 153. With regard to the arrest of the Presidents of the two trade union federations and of the Operations Officer of SYNESTER, the Government indicates that the federations decided to demonstrate without completing all the procedures required for a strike. It also reports that, after a radio broadcast during which the two trade union leaders made statements that bordered on terrorism, the Governor of the Central Region ordered them to be arrested and detained for a period of 15 days, renewable once, in accordance with the legislation in force. After the first 15 days of detention, the Government sought and obtained their release by the competent administrative authority.
4. 154. The Government concludes that freedom of association is enjoyed in Cameroon, as seen from the number of employers’ and workers’ organizations that operate freely in the country without interference from the authorities, and that collective bargaining is a constant and ongoing practice in Cameroon.

The Committee’s conclusions

1. 155. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of the arrest and detention of leaders of the National Union of Land Transport Employees SYNESTER and the National Union of Professional Drivers and Public Transport Workers SYNACPROTCAM in retaliation for calling a national strike in January 2015.
2. 156. The Committee observes from the information supplied that in November 2014, the Government established a tripartite committee on the public transport sector, in which the two complainants were unable to participate, at the conclusion of which it was decided, among other things, to increase the period covered by the insurance premium from two months to three months as from January 2015. In light of the objections raised by SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM, the Government held meetings with these trade unions but, according to the Government, no progress was made owing to differences in the parties’ interests. In January 2015, the insurance companies’ implementation of the planned increase prompted SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM to call a nationwide strike for 19 January 2015.
3. 157. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations that on 15 January 2015, the Operations Officer of SYNESTER was arrested in the city of Bafoussam while distributing leaflets on the forthcoming strike and was immediately placed in pre-trial detention, initially for a period of six months, for sedition. On 16 January 2015, the Presidents of SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM were arrested after a radio broadcast in which they reiterated their call for a general strike. They were detained at the police Mobile Intervention Unit for 15 days on accusations of advocacy of a crime, sedition and terrorist activities. The Government indicates, with regard to their arrest, that their statements during the radio broadcast led the Governor of the Central Region to order their arrest and detention, in accordance with the law, on accusations of advocacy of a crime, sedition and terrorist activities. Recalling, without further elaboration, that the two trade union federations did not follow the legal procedures required for a strike, the Government indicates that it sought and obtained the release of the two Presidents at the end of the 15-day period of administrative detention.
4. 158. The Committee further notes that the Operations Officer of SYNESTER was released on 27 February 2015, when the pre-trial detention order was lifted following intervention by SYNESTER, which confirmed that at the time of his arrest, Mr Patrice Fioko had been carrying out trade union activities.
5. 159. The Committee regrets that the Government did not provide more specific information concerning the nature of the statements made by the Presidents of SYNESTER and SYNACPROTCAM during the radio broadcast on 16 January 2015 and expresses its deep concern that these statements led to their arrest and detention for 15 days on accusations of advocacy of a crime, sedition and terrorist activities on the order of the Governor of the Central Region and not pursuant to a judicial proceeding. In this regard, the Committee would like to recall that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and to this end workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities. Nevertheless, in expressing their opinions, trade union organizations should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 154].
6. 160. The Committee notes, however, that as a direct result of the aforementioned arrests, the strike that the two trade union federations had called for 19 January 2015 could not be held. The Committee would like to recall that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests and that the conditions that have to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful should be reasonable and in any event not such as to place a substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations [see Digest, op. cit., paras 522 and 547]. Regarding the arrest and detention of the trade unionists, the Committee once again emphasizes the following principles: (i) the arrest, even if only briefly, of trade union leaders and trade unionists, and of the leaders of employers’ organizations, for exercising legitimate activities in relation with their right of association constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association; (ii) the arrest of trade unionists and leaders of employers’ organizations may create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities; and (iii) while persons engaged in trade union activities or holding trade union office cannot claim immunity in respect of the ordinary criminal law, trade union activities should not in themselves be used by the public authorities as a pretext for the arbitrary arrest or detention of trade unionists [see Digest, op. cit., paras 62, 67 and 72]. The Committee expects the Government to ensure full respect for these principles.
7. 161. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the complainants, the arrests made in this case pursuant to the Act on the Suppression of Terrorism (Act No. 2014/028 of 23 December 2014) are examples of the current situation of trade unions in Cameroon, where it has become impossible to carry out trade union activities in accordance with Convention No. 87. The Committee urges the Government to ensure not only that implementation of the Act does not lead to retaliation against trade union leaders and members who express their views within their mandates and carry out legitimate trade union activities in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, but also that it is not perceived as a threat to or intimidation of trade unionists or the trade union movement as a whole. In addition, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations with respect to the conformity of the Act on the Suppression of Terrorism with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 162. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee expects the Government to ensure full respect for the principles of freedom of association recalled by the Committee with respect to the right to strike, freedom of expression and the arrest and detention of trade unionists.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to ensure not only that implementation of the Act does not lead to retaliation against trade union leaders and members who express their views within their mandates and carry out legitimate trade union activities in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, but also that it is not perceived as a threat to or intimidation of trade unionists or the trade union movement as a whole.
   • (c) The Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations with respect to the conformity of the Act on the Suppression of Terrorism with the principles of freedom of association.