Definitive Report - REPORT_NO329, November 2002

1. 818. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 15 March 2002. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 26 June 2002.
2. 819. Zimbabwe has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 820. The complainant alleges acts of unauthorized police entry in trade union premises in order to prevent a meeting of the executive council of a trade union from taking place.
2. 821. In its communication dated 15 March 2002 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) states that on 14 March 2002 at approximately 2 p.m., policemen in plain clothes entered by force into the headquarters of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) in Harare in order to monitor a meeting of its executive council. When reminded that they were not invited and should therefore leave the ZCTU premises, they threatened that unless they were allowed in, they would use force to disband the meeting. The complainant alleges that as the union leadership stuck to its position, the police prevented the ZCTU from proceeding with the meeting.
3. 822. The complainant alleges moreover that the situation of trade unionists in Zimbabwe is extremely precarious at present. According to the complainant several trade unionists have been victimized both during the electoral campaign and the period leading to it, while during the electoral campaign the President allegedly expressed the intention to deregister the ZCTU. The complainant further notes that unionized workers have been massively involved in civic and political activities calling for a change in the political leadership in Zimbabwe as workers are bearing the brunt of the mismanagement of the national economy and are prompted to militate for change by the erosion of their purchasing power, high unemployment, the breakdown in social and medical facilities and the looming problem of famine.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 823. In its communication dated 26 June 2002, the Government states that far from forcing its way in the ZCTU meeting, the police simply approached the ZCTU leadership in order to ascertain the nature of the gathering and, that at that point, the ZCTU executive council abandoned the meeting citing police interference. The Government informs the Committee that it acted in accordance with the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) which requires prior notification of public meetings and authorizes their monitoring by the police (Chapters 11:17 and 28:03). With regard to the legal basis of its action, the Government informs the Committee that after the aborted meeting, the ZCTU filed a petition to the High Court which ruled that ZCTU meetings are not covered by POSA.
2. 824. The Government is of the view that the aborted ZCTU meeting was not a genuine trade union meeting but rather aimed at planning mass action against the Government, as shown by the fact that the organization called for a stay away two days later. The Government emphasizes that the stay away did not concern issues of employment but political goals. According to the Government, the ZCTU is an appendage of MDC, an opposition political party, which lost the latest presidential elections and connived with ZCTU to embark on mass actions to topple the elected Government. The Government points out that, as it has communicated to the ZCTU leadership, it does not interfere in genuine trade union meetings but if it has good cause to believe that the meetings are of a political nature and in contravention of POSA, it will not hesitate to deal with the situation, particularly when the action is aimed at removing the Government by violence.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 825. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that on 14 March 2002 at approximately 2 p.m., representatives of the Zimbabwean Republic Police in plain clothes entered the ZCTU headquarters in Harare, threatened that they would use force to disband the meeting unless they were allowed in the premises, and finally prevented the ZCTU from proceeding with a scheduled meeting.
2. 826. The Committee notes that the Government states that the police simply approached the ZCTU leadership in order to ascertain the nature of the gathering, in accordance with the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) which prohibits public meetings without prior notice to the police, and that the decision to abandon the meeting was taken by the ZCTU itself. The Committee also notes that according to the Government, the aborted ZCTU meeting was not a genuine trade union meeting but rather a meeting of a political nature. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the ZCTU called the aborted meeting in order to plan a stay away, which took place two days later, in an effort to embark on mass action to topple the Government. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent information supporting its views on this.
3. 827. The Committee observes, however, that the High Court ruling of 11 April 2002 (sent by the Government) found that the meeting of the ZCTU was exempted from POSA by virtue of paragraph (j) of the Schedule to section 24(5) of this Act. Moreover, the Court found that the ZCTU meeting did not qualify as a public gathering as defined in section 2 of this Act. The High Court found therefore that the police did not have a right to monitor the meeting and issued an order prohibiting the police from sitting at or attending the meeting of the General Council of the ZCTU which would be held on Friday, 12 April 2002, and any similar meeting to be held in the future.
4. 828. The Committee recalls that “the entry by police or military forces into trade union premises without a judicial warrant constitutes a serious and unjustifiable interference in trade union activities” [Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, para. 176] and that “the right of the inviolability of trade union premises also necessarily implies that the public authorities may not insist on entering such premises without prior authorization or without having obtained a legal warrant to do so” [Digest, op. cit., para. 175]. The Committee recalls that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that the public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions [Digest, op. cit., para. 761].
5. 829. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the principles of non-interference by the authorities in the meetings and internal affairs of trade unions are respected and to implement the order of the High Court of Zimbabwe to the effect that police intervention in the meetings of trade unions may be avoided in the future.
6. 830. The Committee notes with grave concern the allegations of the complainant concerning the intention of the authorities to deregister the ZCTU and the attitude against trade unionists before and during the electoral campaign. It observes that the Government has not made observations in this respect. The Committee strongly urges the Government to refrain from any action in this respect.