Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes from the 2006 report by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) on the trafficking of women in East and South Africa, that South Africa is a source, transit and destination country for men, women and children, noting in particular the phenomenon of Thai women being trafficked to South Africa for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The Committee also notes from the IOM’s report that a Bill to address trafficking in persons was prepared in 2008 by the South African Law Commission on Trafficking in Persons. Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), likewise ratified by South Africa, the Committee has noted the adoption of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, No. 32 of 2007, which contains transitional provisions relating to trafficking in persons for sexual purposes (sections 70 and 71).

The Committee hopes that comprehensive legislation on trafficking in persons will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will communicate a copy to the Office. The Committee also asks the Government  to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to prevent, suppress and punish human trafficking, including, in particular, information on measures taken to encourage victims of trafficking to bring complaints to the competent authorities, on the judicial proceedings which have been instituted under Sections 70 and 71 referred to above and on the penalties imposed on perpetrators.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Freedom of career military personnel to terminate their service. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding Section 59 of the Defence Act (Act 42 of 2002), which allows members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to terminate their service by means of a voluntary resignation, subject to a notice period of three months, or of a shorter period as the Chief of the SANDF may determine and allows contracted members to leave the service upon the termination of their contract. The Committee asks the Government to provide, with its next report, copies of the above provisions of the Defence Act.

Article 2(2)(c). 1. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. The Committee notes that under Chapter V of Service Order 5 of the Department of Correctional Services, communicated by the Government in its report, “prisoners who are required for the performance of skilled labour may only be provided to employers with the prior written authorization of the Commissioner” (Item I(xv)). The Committee previously recalled that, under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, prisoners must not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies, or associations. However, as explained in paragraphs 59–60 and
114–122 of the 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in the Convention. This necessarily requires the free and informed consent of the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages, social security and occupational safety and health.

The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate provisions requiring voluntary consent of the prisoners concerned to work for private enterprises. The Committee also asks the Government to clarify, in its next report, the issue of the wage determination arrangements referred to in Item I of Service Order 5, mentioned above. Please also supply copies of any agreements concluded between the prisons and the private enterprises to which the prisoners are “hired out”, setting forth the terms and conditions of work.

2. Community service performed for non-public entities. The Committee takes note of the provisions of the Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, concerning community service. The Committee notes, in particular, that community service is defined as a legal instruction requiring an offender to perform a specified amount of uncompensated work at a community service institution or public institution. These services must be rendered in compliance with a court order or under conditions set by the correctional supervision and parole board; offenders are assigned to perform these services on the basis of their talents, skills or documented community needs. The Committee notes that community services can be performed for, inter alia, charity organizations and welfare institutions.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether offenders assigned to work in charitable bodies and welfare institutions formally consent to doing such community work. Please also indicate what measures are taken to ensure that the work done is really in the general interest, and provide a list of authorized organizations and institutions, indicating the type of work performed.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. In its earlier comments, the Committee asked for information on the nature of works performed by traditional communities, in accordance with customs, customary law and applicable legislation, and on any guarantees provided to ensure that the members of traditional communities have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such works. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that the Department of Correctional Services does not have a mandate to deal with minor communal services performed by traditional communities. However, the Committee previously noted the Government’s White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance, issued in July 2003 by the Minister of Provincial and Local Government, indicating that it would introduce legislation to regulate the accountability of traditional leadership and authorities. Referring to paragraph 65 of the 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the criteria under which compulsory communal services is not deemed to be “forced labour.” These criteria are: (1) the work is “minor,” i.e. related primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community; (2) the work is “communal,” i.e. performed in the direct interests of the community and does not relate to work intended to benefit a wider group; and (3) the members of the community or their direct representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.

The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide information on the nature of the works performed by these traditional communities, as regulated by the Minister of Provincial and Local Government under the White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance, and on the guarantees provided to ensure that the members of traditional communities have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such works. The Committee further requests that the Government provide information on the anticipated legislation aimed at regulating the accountability of traditional leadership and authorities, in order to ensure that any of these customs and customary laws are in compliance with the Convention.

Article 25. Penal sanctions. The Committee had previously requested information from the Government on any legal proceedings instituted as a consequence of the application in practice of section 48(2) and (3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75 of 1997, under which a person who, for his or her own benefit, or for the benefit of someone else, causes, demands or imposes forced labour, commits an offence, and of section 93(2) of the same Act, under which a person convicted of an offence under section 48 may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a period of up to three years. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its latest report that there are currently no such legal proceedings, as no offence in breach of this provision has been reported or taken to courts so far. The Government further reports that no jurisdiction to this effect exists. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its future reports, information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Act, as soon as such information becomes available, indicating, in particular, the minimum sentence of imprisonment which could be imposed by the courts under these provisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2007. The Committee notes that, in reply to the Committee’s request for information on how it is guaranteed that prisoners who are made available to private hirers (pursuant to Department of Correctional Services Service Order B, Service Order 5), or who are employed in joint venture prisons (established under Chapter XIV of the Correctional Services Act) give their voluntary consent to such employment. The Government stated:

–           only willing inmates are assigned to this type of work and acknowledge work allocation by signing the minutes of the Case Management Committee;

–           only those inmates who choose to, will, on the given day, march out with work teams of private hirers;

–           in other words, whereas inmates are allocated to this type of work, they have a choice to go or not to go to work on a particular day.

The Government indicated that it had attached as an annex to its report a copy of the service orders referred to above; however, no attachment was received. The Committee therefore asks that the service orders be forwarded by the Government with its next report.

2. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contained no further reply on the following points.

3. The Committee recalled that, in addition to formal consent, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relationship, such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, in order to remove the private employment of prisoners from the scope of Article 2(2)(c). The Committee again requests the Government to give details on such guarantees and safeguards in law and practice in its next report.

4. The Committee asked for information from the Government, including copies of any relevant interpretive administrative rules and guidelines, concerning the mechanics of the consent procedure prescribed in section 51(2) of Chapter VI (Community Corrections) of Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, and how it has operated in practice. The Committee again requests the Government to give this information in its next report.

5. Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 2(2)(a). Compulsory military service. Career military servicemen. The Committee sought information about what, if any, guarantees are provided to ensure that services exacted for military purposes are used for purely military ends, and it also requested a copy of provisions applicable to military officers and other career military servicemen concerning their right to leave the service in time of peace, at their own request, either at certain reasonable intervals or by means of notice of reasonable length. The Committee again requests the Government to give this information in its next report.

6. Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. The Committee asked for more detailed information on the nature of works performed by traditional communities, in accordance with customs, customary law and applicable legislation, and on any guarantees provided to ensure that the members of traditional communities have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such works. The Committee again requests the Government to give this information in its next report.

7. Article 25. Penal sanctions. The Committee requested information on any legal proceedings instituted as a consequence of the application in practice of section 48(2) and (3) of Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75 of 1997, under which a person who, for his or her own benefit or for the benefit of someone else, causes, demands or imposes forced labour, commits an offence, and of section 93(2) of the same Act, under which a person convicted of an offence under section 48 may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a period of up to three years, and on the penalties imposed, as well as copies of relevant court decisions. The Committee again requests the Government to give this information in its next report.

8. The Committee trusts that the Government will reply to each of these aspects of the Committee’s previous direct request in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that in some provinces there have been reports of a common occurrence, during harvesting months, where children are taken out of school and transported in truckloads to farms far away from their places of residence, and that labour inspectors were investigating these allegations. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in its latest report on the results of these investigations. With reference to forced or compulsory child labour, the Committee notes that the Government has ratified the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). In so far as Article 3(a) of Convention No. 182 provides that the worst forms of child labour include "all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour", the Committee is of the view that the problem of forced or compulsory labour of children may be examined more specifically under Convention No. 182. The protection of children is enhanced by the fact that Convention No. 182 requires States which ratify it to take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to henceforth refer to its comments on the application of Convention No. 182.

2. Article 2(2)(a). In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to indicate what guarantees are provided to ensure that services exacted for military purposes are used for purely military ends. It also requested the Government to supply a copy of provisions applicable to military officers and other career military servicemen as regards their right to leave the service in time of peace, at their own request, either at certain reasonable intervals or by means of notice of reasonable length. Noting that the Government’s report contains no such information, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide the information requested in its next report.

3. Article 2(2)(c). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 37(1)(b) of Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, every prisoner must perform any labour which is related to any development programme or which generally is designed to foster habits of industry. The Government indicated in its 2000 report that Department Order B, Service Order (5), details orders of the President for the application of prison labour. Under these Orders, prisoners may be available to private hirers sworn in as temporary correctional officials, thus making it under "public authority" against payment. The Government also indicated that no offender is forced to perform such labour.

4. The Committee noted that Chapter XIV of Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, allows the establishment of joint-venture prisons. The Government indicated in its 2000 report that, as part of the Government’s public/private partnership, there were initiatives relating to two prisons at Bloemfontein and Louis Trichardt which were supposed to be managed as a joint venture between the Department of Correctional Services and the private sector. The prisoners were supposed to work inside the prison premises as part of a structured day programme aimed at the development and training of the individual inmate.

5. The Committee observed that, under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, prisoners must not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. However, while this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97-101 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2(2)(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove employment from the scope of Article 2(2)(c).

6. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate how it is guaranteed that the person concerned is giving such voluntary consent, and to give details on the guarantees and safeguards established in law and practice. As the Government’s report once again contains no reply to these comments, the Committee hopes that the information requested will be provided in its next report. The Committee also reiterates its request for a copy of Department Order B, Service Order (5), referred to in the Government’s 2000 report.

7. Community corrections and consent of convicted persons to work for non-public entities. The Committee notes that, under section 51(2) of Chapter VI (Community Corrections) of the Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, no order imposing community corrections may be made unless the person to be subjected to community corrections agrees that it should be made according to the stipulated conditions and undertakes to cooperate in meeting them. Among the stipulated conditions are that the person concerned does community service (section 52(b)), seeks employment (section 52(c)), or takes up and remains in employment (section 52(d)). The Committee recalls that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention for compulsory work of convicted persons does not extend to their work for private entities, even if they are not for profit and even if they are under public supervision and control. However, such community work sentences could be imposed if the offender either requests to do such community work, or gives free and voluntary consent to so perform the work. The Committee would appreciate information from the Government, including copies of any relevant interpretive administrative rules and guidelines, concerning the mechanics of the consent procedure prescribed in section 51(2) of the Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998 and how it has operated in practice.

8. Article 2(2)(e). The Committee previously noted from the Government’s report that traditional leaders may ask their community members to perform work. According to the Government, such work performed by the community may not be the sole benefit of the traditional leader and may imply a project that is of benefit to the whole community, e.g. repairing roads and fences, etc. The Government also indicated that, in some traditional areas, legislation stipulates that communities must respect traditional leaders and must be obedient to their authority. In the Government’s view, the work exacted from the community members should not be seen as forced labour, but as "customary labour" that is voluntarily performed on a communal basis within a specific community. At the same time, the Government indicates that a problem may, however, arise within a traditional community regarding unlawful discrimination against a person for failing to show his obedience and respect for traditional leader.

9. The Committee notes from the White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance, issued in July 2003 by the Minister for Provincial and Local Government, the discussion of the structures of traditional leadership, which states in part:

Traditional leaders administered the affairs of their communities through customary structures. Each structure comprised the traditional leader, headmen and members of the community. Through these structures, a traditional leader coordinated the activities of his/her community, including ploughing and harvesting, hunting, war expeditions, ancestral worship, rituals and other traditional activities. In addition, through these structures, traditional meetings (izimbizo/dipitso) were called where the affairs of the community were discussed and disputes among members of the community were resolved.

The White Paper proposes that pre-colonial tribal councils be established according to custom and be renamed "traditional councils", with functions that include continuing to generally administer the affairs of the community in accordance with custom and tradition. The White Paper, in discussing the accountability of traditional leaders and structures, states that traditional structures must ensure that, at least once a year, a meeting of the whole community is called where the chief and his counsellors report on their activities of the preceding year, and that legislation to regulate the accountability of traditional leadership and authorities, as well as a code of conduct, would be introduced. The Committee notes the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Act, 2003, which embodies proposals in the White Paper, and which provides, among other things, for: recognition of traditional communities (section 2); the establishment by traditional communities of traditional councils (section 3), charged, among other things, with administering the affairs of the traditional community in accordance with customs and traditions (section 4(1)(a)) and performing the functions conferred by customary law, customs and statutory law (section 4(1)(l)); traditional leaders performing the functions provided for in terms of customary law and customs of the traditional community concerned and in applicable legislation (section 19); and codes of general conduct for traditional leaders and traditional councils (schedule).

10. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(e) exempts from the provisions of the Convention "minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community". Referring to paragraph 37 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the criteria which determine the limits of this exception and serve to distinguish it from other forms of compulsory labour. These criteria are as follows: (1) the services must be "minor services", i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work; (2) the services must be "communal services" performed "in the direct interest of the community", and not related to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (3) the members of the community or their direct representatives must "have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services".

11. The Committee therefore requests once again that the Government provide more detailed information on the nature of works performed by traditional communities, in accordance with customs, customary law and applicable legislation, and that it indicate what guarantees are provided to ensure that the members of traditional communities have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such works.

12. Article 25. The Committee previously noted that, under section 48(2) and (3), of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75 of 1997, a person who, for his or her own benefit or for the benefit of someone else, causes, demands or imposes forced labour, commits an offence. By virtue of section 93(2) of the same Act, a person convicted of an offence in terms of section 48 may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a period not longer than three years. While noting the Government’s brief indications concerning the application of the above provisions, the Committee once again requests the Government to supply information on any legal proceedings instituted as a consequence of their application, indicating penalties imposed and supplying copies of relevant court decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. With reference to its comments made under Conventions Nos. 138 and 182, likewise ratified by South Africa, the Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its report that in some provinces there have been reports of a common occurrence during harvesting months, where children are taken out of school and transported in truck loads to farms far away from their places of residence. According to the Government, it is alleged that it is due to collusion between farmers and local chiefs, and in some instances parents, due to poverty, give permission for their children to be used. The Committee has also noted the Government’s statement in the report that labour inspectors are investigating these allegations and requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the results of these investigations.

Article 2(2)(a). In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to indicate what guarantees are provided to ensure that services exacted for military purposes are used for purely military ends. It also requested the Government to supply a copy of provisions applicable to military officers and other career military servicemen as regards their right to leave the service in time of peace, at their own request, either at certain reasonable intervals or by means of notice of reasonable length. Noting that the Government’s report contains no such information, the Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide the information requested in its next report.

Article 2(2)(c). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 37(1)(b) of Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, every prisoner must perform any labour which is related to any development programme or which generally is designed to foster habits of industry. The Government indicated in its 2000 report that Department Order B, Service Order (5), details orders of the president for the application of prison labour. Under these Orders, prisoners may be available to private hirers sworn in as temporary correctional officials, thus making it under "public authority" against payment. The Government also indicated that no offender is forced to perform such labour.

The Committee noted that Chapter XIV of Correctional Services Act No. 111 of 1998, allows the establishment of joint venture prisons. The Government indicated in its 2000 report that, as part of the Government’s public/private partnership, there were initiatives relating to two prisons at Bloemfontein and Louis Trichardt which were supposed to be managed as a joint venture between the Department of Correctional Services and the private sector. The prisoners were supposed to work inside the prison premises as part of a structured day programme aimed at the development and training of the individual inmate.

The Committee observed that, under Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, prisoners must not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. However, while this Article strictly prohibits that prisoners be hired to or placed at the disposal of private undertakings, the Committee has accepted, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 97-101 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that schemes existing in certain countries under which prisoners may, particularly during the period preceding their release, voluntarily enter a normal employment relationship with private employers, do not fall within the scope of the Convention. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition in Article 2(2)(c); this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of the consent, i.e. the basic obligation to perform prison labour and other restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom to take up normal employment, there must be further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relation such as a level of wages and social security corresponding to a free labour relationship, to remove the employment from the scope of Article 2(2)(c).

The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate how it is guaranteed that the person concerned is giving such voluntary consent, and to give details on the guarantees and safeguards established in law and practice. As the Government’s report contains no reply to these comments, the Committee hopes that the information requested will be provided in its next report. The Committee also reiterates its request for a copy of Department Order B, Service Order (5), referred to in the Government’s 2000 report.

Article 2(2)(e). The Committee previously noted from the Government’s report that traditional leaders may ask their community members to perform work. According to the Government, such work performed by the community may not be the sole benefit of the traditional leader and may imply a project that is of benefit to the whole community, e.g. repairing roads and fences, etc. The Government also indicated that in some traditional areas, legislation stipulates that communities must respect traditional leaders and must be obedient to their authority. In the Government’s view, the work exacted from the community members should not be seen as forced labour, but as "customary labour" that is voluntarily performed on a communal basis within a specific community. At the same time, the Government indicates that a problem may, however, arise within a traditional community whether a person cannot be discriminated against for failing to show his obedience and respect for traditional leader.

The Committee recalls in this connection that Article 2(2)(e) exempts from the provisions of the Convention "minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community". Referring to paragraph 37 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the criteria which determine the limits of this exception and serve to distinguish it from other forms of compulsory labour. These criteria are as follows: (1) the services must be "minor services", i.e. relate primarily to maintenance work; (2) the services must be "communal services" performed "in the direct interest of the community", and not related to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; (3) the members of the community or their direct representatives must "have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services".

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide a more detailed information on the nature of works performed by the traditional communities and to indicate what guarantees are provided to ensure that the members of the community shall have the right to be consulted with regard to the need for such works. The Committee again requests the Government to supply a copy of the White Paper on traditional leadership and institutions referred to in the Government’s 2002 report.

Article 25. The Committee previously noted that, under section 48(2) and (3), of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75 of 1997, a person who for his or her own benefit or for the benefit of someone else, causes, demands or imposes forced labour, commits an offence. By virtue of section 93(2) of the same Act, a person convicted of an offence in terms of section 48 may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a period not longer than three years. While noting the Government’s brief indications concerning the application of the above provisions, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on any legal proceedings instituted as a consequence of their application, indicating penalties imposed and supplying copies of relevant court decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report and in its 2000 and 2001 reports on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, additional information on the following points.

Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what guarantees are provided to ensure that services exacted for military purposes are used for purely military ends. It also requests the Government to supply copy of provisions applicable to military officers and other career military servicemen, as regards their right to leave the service, in time of peace, at their own request, either at certain reasonable intervals or by means of notice of reasonable length.

Article 2(2)(c). The Committee notes that, under section 37(1)(b), of Correctional Services Act No. 111, 1998, every prisoner must perform any labour which is related to any development programme or which generally is designed to foster habits of industry. In it 2000 report, the Government indicates that Department Order B Service Order (5) details orders of the President for the application of prison labour. Under these Orders, prisoners may be available to private hirers sworn in as temporary correctional officials, thus making it under "public authority" against payment. The Government also indicates that no offender is forced to perform such labour. The Committee notes that Chapter XIV of Correctional Services Act No. 111, 1998, allows to be established joint venture prisons. In its 2000 report, the Government has indicated that, as part of the Government’s Public Private Partnership, initiatives relating to two prisons at Bloemfontein and Louis Trichardt, respectively, were supposed to allow to be established in the latter 2001. The prisoners were supposed to work inside the prison premises as part of a structured day programme aimed at the development and training of the individual inmate. They were supposed to be rewarded according to a system of modest gratuity and incentives with the following aims: to encourage commitment to work activities and development programmes; and to reward effort and good behaviour.

The Committee observes that, under Article 2(2)(c), of the Convention, prisoners must not be hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. As the Committee has pointed out in paragraphs 112-125 of its General Report to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference (1998), only when performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship, can work by prisoners for private companies be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of this Article; this necessarily requires the formal consent or the person concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as the payment of normal wages and social security, etc. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate how it guarantees that the person concerned is giving such voluntary consent, and to give details on the guarantees and safeguards established in law and practice. The Committee also asks the Government to supply a copy of Department Order B Service Order (5).

Article 2(2)(e). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its 2002 report, according to which traditional leaders may ask their community members to perform work. Such work performed by the community may, however, not be the sole benefit of the traditional leader but to the whole community, when they have to repair roads and fences. The Committee also notes that in some traditional areas, some legislation also stipulated that their communities must respect traditional leaders and they must be obedient to their authority. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the nature of works performed by the traditional communities and to indicate what guarantees are provided to ensure that the members of the community shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such works. The Committee also requests the Government to supply a copy of the final White Paper process on traditional leadership and traditional institution.

Article 25. The Committee notes that, under section 48(2) and (3), of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75, 1997, a person who for his or her own benefit or for the benefit of someone else, causes, demands or imposes forced labour commits an offence. By virtue of section 93(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75, 1997, a person convicted of an offence in terms of section 48 of Act No. 75 may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a period not longer than three years. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the practical application of the abovementioned sections and to indicate the amount of the fine imposed under section 93(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act No. 75, 1997.