Interim Report - REPORT_NO158, November 1976

1. 257. The Committee already examined this case at its session in November 1974, when it submitted an interim report which appears in paragraphs 364 to 375 of its 147th Report. The 147th Report was approved by the Governing Body at its 194th Session (November 1974).
2. 258. The Central African Republic 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. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 259. The Committee noted in its 147th Report that from the information available it appeared that Messrs. Sandos and Malikanga, trade union leaders and Workers' delegates to the international Labour Conference, had been arrested on 28 December 1973 for activities considered by the Government to have been of a political nature. They did not appear to have been brought to trial. However, by a communication of 25 September 1974, the Government announced that Mr. Sandos had been released on 13 August 1974.
2. 260. The Committee had recommended the Governing Body, in particular, to note that Mr. Sandos had been released and to request the Government to supply information concerning the fate of Mr. Malikanga.
3. 261. During the examination of this report by the Governing Body at its 194th Session (November 1974), the Workers' group pointed out that the matter also concerned Messrs. D.M. Mapouka and G. Igbindi, and, requested the Director-General to obtain information regarding the situation of those two persons.
4. 262. The WCL referred, in a further communication of 21 April 1975, to the arrest of these same two persons. It stated that Mr. Sandos had been released, but had been arrested again at the beginning of January 1975 and that his companions were still in detention. It asked that these persons be released or, failing that, brought to speedy trial by an impartial and independent judicial authority. The complainant added, in a letter of 23 October 1975, that these persons appeared to be in prison still without having been charged or brought before a court. Their health, or at any rate that of Mr. Sandos, appeared to have been fairly seriously affected by the long months of detention.
5. 263. Despite the lapse of time since the complaints were communicated to the Government concerned and despite the serious nature of the complaints, the Government had not supplied any observations on the allegations made against it. The Committee therefore addressed an urgent appeal to the Government in November 1975 to supply the information requested. The latter replied by a letter of 29 January 1976, which arrived too late for examination by the Committee at its session in February 1976.
6. 264. The Government considers that there are inconsistencies in the complainant's attitude. When the aforementioned persons were arrested for acts prejudicial to state security, the WCL had asked, and obtained authorisation, to send a delegation to the Central African Republic to inquire into the situation. The mission visited Bangui in February 1974 where it met members of the Government and trade unionists of the capital. After the visit, the General Secretary of the WCL made a statement to the agency France-Presse and the Government enclosed the agency's text with its reply. In this it was stated that the mission had visited the country to inquire into the reasons for the winding up of the executive Committee of the Central African General Trade Union Congress (CAGTUC) on 30 December 1973. The WCL stated that it had received all the information it required and that it intended to withdraw its complaint. It said that if the delegates had not been authorised to meet Mr. Sandos, it was because he had been arrested for matters affecting state security. The delegation had paid tribute to the manner in which it had been received in the Central African Republic.
7. 265. The Government considers that the WCL receives false and unverified information and states that Messrs. Sandos and Igbindi were released in 1975 under a presidential pardon. Messrs. Malikanga and Mapouka were still under arrest on charges indicating that they were at the root of this matter. It was stated in the statutes of the CAGTUC that the organisation was not political. It added that if trade unionists did not respect these rules in accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87 and engaged in subversive activity, the Government had to take measures to safeguard national security and peace, of which it was the sole guardian, in the exercise of its sovereign rights. The Government considers that it is not the complainant's role to encourage subversive activity through trade union organisations, whether members of the WCL or not, and asks the WCL to provide the Committee with clearer information on its conflicting statements. It proposes a joint discussion before the Committee if necessary.
8. 266. It will be recalled that, in a communication dated 15 February 1974, the WCL stated that it had been informed officially during its mission to the Central African Republic that the charges brought against Mr. Sandos and Mr. Malikanga, the trade union leaders, had not been brought on account of their trade union activities, but on account of acts which concerned the security of the State. The WCL said that in the light of the information gathered during its mission it felt that there was no reason to doubt that the persons concerned would be treated in accordance with the principle the importance of which the Committee has consistently emphasised, namely that the accused should receive a prompt and fair trial by the ordinary courts whatever the charges brought against them. As a result, the WCL stated that it was withdrawing its complaint for the time being. The Committee therefore decided in February 1974 to adjourn the case. However, by a subsequent letter dated 10 May 1974, the WCL stated that nearly six months had gone by and the persons concerned were still in prison without, so far as it knew, having had an opportunity of being assisted by a lawyer and without having appeared before a court. The WCL consequently requested the ILO to ask the Government what steps it intended to take.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 267. The Committee wishes first of all to call attention once again to the principles which have always guided it when examining cases similar to the present one. In a number of cases where allegations have been made that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested for trade union activities, and the Government's replies have amounted to general denials of the allegations or were simply to the effect that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security, or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the results of such proceedings, in order to be able to make a proper examination of the allegations. When the Committee has considered, on the basis of the information supplied to it, that the persons concerned have been judged by a competent judicial authority, that they have enjoyed the benefit of a normal court procedure and that they have been sentenced for acts having no relationship to trade union activities or which went beyond the scope of normal trade union activities, the Committee has considered that the case did not call for further study.
2. 268. The Committee wishes to point out that, although the fact of exercising trade union activity or holding trade union office does not confer any immunity as regards the criminal law, the prolonged detention of trade unionists without bringing them to trial may constitute a serious impediment to the exercise of trade union rights.
3. 269. In the case in question, the Committee notes that Mr. Sandos and Mr. Igbindi have been released. In the cases of Mr. Malikanga and Mr. Mapouka, the Government has not provided detailed information on the subversive activities which led to their arrest. Moreover, these two persons do not seem to have appeared before a court.