Interim Report - Report No 105, 1968

1. 246. This case had already been the subject of an interim report by the Committee in paragraphs 250 to 286 of its 103rd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 171st Session (Geneva, February-March 1968).
2. 247. The case involved three sets of allegations: allegations concerning the arrest and conviction of Mr. Mahjub ben Seddik, General Secretary of the Moroccan Federation of Labour (U.M.T.) and President of the All-African Trade Union Federation; allegations relating to measures taken against the newspaper L'Avant-Garde, the organ of the U.M.T and allegations relating to the strike in July 1967.
3. 248. As the Committee has put forward its final conclusions on the last series of allegations', they will not be dealt with again in the following paragraphs. As regards the two other series of allegations, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government for certain additional information and observations.
4. 249. Since the Committee's session in February 1968, when it submitted its 103rd Report to the Governing Body, the Director-General has received communications from 483 local branches of the U.M.T on the questions at issue in this case. He has also received a communication from the U.M.T itself and a communication from the All-African Trade Union Federation forwarded to him by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
5. 250. The Government supplied the information and observations requested of it in two communications dated 7 February and 2 March 1968.
6. 251. Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Arrest and Conviction of Mr. Mahjub ben Seddik, General Secretary of the Moroccan Federation of Labour and President of the All-African Trade Union Federation
  252. 252 It was alleged that Mr. Mahjub ben Seddik, General Secretary of the U.M.T and President of the All-African Trade Union Federation, had been arbitrarily arrested on 7 July 1967 as he was leaving his office, and that on 11 July he had been brought before the court of the Sadad of Rabat, which irregularly sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment for having sent to the Government on behalf of the U.M.T a telegram in which the Federation, as a trade union organisation, gave its views on a problem of national importance. The complainants protested against what they considered an arbitrary measure, which in their view " seriously threatens the whole of the Moroccan trade union movement ".
  253. 253 In its observations the Government stated that Mr ben Seddik had been convicted not as a trade unionist but merely as a citizen who had broken the laws in force in his country. This contention, it went on to say, was borne out by the fact that Mr ben Seddik's conviction had in no way hampered the U.M.T in its activities, which continued as freely as before, both in Morocco and abroad. It added that no administrative or judicial action had been taken which might render such activities more difficult or limit their scope.
  254. 254 The Government then provided the following details. Mr. ben Seddik was arrested on 8 July 1967 by the judicial police and brought before the Royal Prosecutor for having drafted and despatched to the Government a telegram couched in insulting terms and containing defamatory allegations, relating, moreover, to matters quite outside those with which a trade union is properly concerned. The Government stated that in this telegram the General Secretary of the U.M.T. " vigorously denounces the constant unconditional support given by the Government to a handful of Zionist provocateurs against the O.C.E as a whole. Such an attitude by the Government in the tragic circumstances of the Arab world today is an affront to the Moroccan people and may well have grave repercussions on the - working class, which feels with indignation the crushing pressure of imperialism on the country and the domination by Zionism of the nerve centres of the Moroccan State."
  255. 255 The Government declared that such remarks and such accusations against the Government could not go unanswered, since they represented a breach of the law prohibiting action likely to bring authority into disrespect.
  256. 256 Mr ben Seddik, the Government stated, having admitted the facts of which he was accused and briefed his lawyers, was summoned to appear before the court of the Sadad of Rabat on 11 July 1967. He was assisted by some 40 legal advisers. According to the Government the accused had enjoyed, during his trial, all the guarantees afforded by the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been permitted all the normal facilities for his defence. After adding that the trial ended with the accused being sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in accordance with the correct procedure, the Government stated that Mr ben Seddik had appealed against the sentence of the court of the Sadad of Rabat.
  257. 257 In view of this last statement the Committee, at its session in February 1968, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to supply the text of the judgment pronounced on appeal in the case of Mr ben Seddik, together with the reasons for the decision.
  258. 258 Since the complainants had also alleged that the hearing of the appeal was full of irregularities and that, in particular, the rights of the defence were not respected in that the French lawyer approached by Mr ben Seddik was not authorised to plead, the Committee also recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to forward its observations on this allegation.
  259. 259 The Government supplied the information referred to in the two previous paragraphs in a communication dated 7 February 1968 (received on 26 February).
  260. 260 In its observations on the particular aspects of the case referred to in paragraph 258, the Government makes the following points. Under the first subsection of the first paragraph of the protocol concerning the legal profession and the conduct of legal matters signed by France and Morocco on 20 May 1965, " French lawyers who are members of the French Bar may be empowered by the appropriate Moroccan authorities to assist or represent parties before any Moroccan court ". The Government points out that the authorisation in question is therefore discretionary. It adds that, by virtue of section 32 of the dahir of 18 May 1959 concerning the organisation of the Bar and the legal profession (as amended by the dahir of 16 January 1962), the Minister of Justice alone is empowered to grant such authorisation, to the exclusion of the court concerned and any other authority.
  261. 261 It would appear from the information available that in Morocco it is within the competence of the Minister of Justice to grant permission for a foreign-in this case a French-lawyer to plead-a point on which the Committee is not required to give an opinion-and that this permission was refused.
  262. 262 As regards the substance of the case the Government, as mentioned earlier, has supplied the judgment of the hearing on appeal together with the reasons therefor.
  263. 263 Whereas the deputy public prosecutor requested the court to impose a harsher sentence than that given by the court of first instance this judgment, given at a public hearing on 13 November 1967 by the Rabat Court of Appeal, confirms the penalty of 18 months' imprisonment imposed on Mr ben Seddik for lack of respect to the authorities in accordance with the dahir of 29 June 1935.
  264. 264 The court's decision is worded as follows: " Whereas the appeal of the accused has no foundation; whereas the judgment given by the court of first instance is based on proven facts and has a due legal foundation; whereas the law has been applied in a juridically correct manner; whereas there is no reason to amend or quash the said judgment; therefore, after due deliberation, in accordance with the law and in the presence of the accused here appealing, the court decides to confirm the judgment given at first instance by the Court of the Sadat of Rabat."
  265. 265 While noting that Mr ben Seddik was not allowed to have the services of the foreign lawyer of his choosing, the Committee observes that the judgments of the court of first instance and on appeal were given by regular judicial bodies.
  266. 266 According to the Government's reply it would appear that the charges against Mr ben Seddik arose out of a political statement and a choice of words considered to be lacking in respect to the authorities. These are points on which the Committee is not competent to express an opinion as such. In any case it seems that the proceedings against the person in question appear to be quite unconnected with his trade union functions or activities.
  267. 267 It also appears from the Government's reply that the U.M.T has not as an organisation had to curtail its activities as a result of the action taken by the Government against Mr ben Seddik (see paragraph 253 above).
  268. 268 Accordingly, for the reasons given in the three previous paragraphs, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to Measures Taken against the Newspaper L'Avant-Garde, the Organ of the Moroccan Federation of Labour
  269. 269 It was alleged that since the arrest and sentencing of Mr ben Seddik, the police, without any legal justification, frequently entered the premises of the U.M.T newspaper L'Avant-Garde, and, without any explanation, destroyed the formes and smashed the types of the newspaper, thereby preventing its publication.
  270. 270 As the Government had not presented its observations on this aspect of the case the Committee, at its session in February 1968, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish them. The Government did so in a letter dated 2 March 1968.
  271. 271 In these observations the Government declares that the U.M.T weekly, L'Avant-Garde, is not a purely trade union publication but often deals with questions which are in no way connected with working-class conditions.
  272. 272 The result, continues the Government, is that from time to time this U.M.T newspaper publishes articles calculated to disturb public order, and this accounts for the measures taken against it. The Government adds that these decisions are, moreover, in conformity with section 77 of the Press Code, which empowers the Ministry for Internal Affairs to seize a newspaper and the Prime Minister to forbid its publication by decree whenever it contains statements damaging to the political, religious and other institutions of the Kingdom.
  273. 273 In a number of previous cases the Committee has stated the view that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is one of the essential elements of trade union rights. In several cases where allegations as to the banning or suppression of trade union newspapers have been met by governments with the statement that the measure was taken because they published seditious matter or matter of a political or anti-national character, the Committee has formulated its conclusions to the Governing Body only after it has had before it extracts from the publications concerned which the governments regarded as justifying their prohibition, and has requested the governments to furnish such extracts where they have not already done so in their observations.
  274. 274 In these circumstances and noting, moreover, that, according to a communication from the U.M.T dated 18 May 1968, the U.M.T newspaper has been seized on 46 consecutive occasions, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to forward the extracts from the weekly L'Avant-Garde which, in its view, justify the measures taken against this publication and to specify the nature of these measures.