Informe provisional - Informe núm. 49, 1961

1. 282. The complaint of the C.G.C.L is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 26 July 1960. The Government of Cameroun forwarded its observations thereon in a communication dated 27 October 1960.
2. 283. On becoming a Member of the International Labour Organisation on 7 June 1960 the Government of Cameroun announced that it recognises that Cameroun remains bound by the obligations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the provisions of which had formerly been declared applicable by France to the territory of Cameroun, and that it undertakes to apply the provisions of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), until it has been able to ratify the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to General Developments in Cameroun
  284. 284 It is alleged by the complainants, who claim to represent nearly all the organised workers in Cameroun, that the leader of the Government is an imperialist and a " neo-colonialist " and that, to prevent the installation of a system which is opposed to freedom, the United Nations should have supervised elections before the country became independent. Allegations are also made that Franco-British and American-West German interests have encouraged the corruption of trade union leaders in order to divide the trade union movement and that, aided by these influences, an anti-trade union Government is now in power. The complainants ally themselves with " the workers and the people " in welcoming " the announcement of the formation of a popular revolutionary government " and refer to the policy of the present Government as having led to " war in Cameroun ". It was in these circumstances, declare the complainants, that emergency legislation was brought into force on 16 May 1959.
  285. 285 The Government begins by denying that the complaining organisation speaks for nearly all the organised workers in Cameroun, stating that elections of staff delegates in October-November 1959 showed its representation to be only 21.56 per cent of the organised workers, or 12.54 per cent of the workers as a whole.
  286. 286 The Government declares that, while it confines its reply to the trade union aspects of the complaint, the " sanguinary disturbances " in Cameroun obliged it to promulgate the State of Urgency Ordinance, No. 60-52 of 7 May 1960, and to put it into force in certain Departments of Cameroun by Decree No. 60-124 of 8 May 1960.
  287. 287 The Committee has stated in the past that the question of a state of siege-to which the " state of urgency " in Cameroun is comparable-in itself presents a purely political aspect on which it is not called upon to express an opinion, but that it should, on the other hand, examine its effects solely from the aspect of freedom of association in respect of the specific allegations made by the complainants. In the present case the Committee considers that it should follow the same rule in examining the more specific allegations considered subsequently. In doing so, however, the Committee observes that the brief statement by the Government that serious disturbances caused it to declare a state of urgency should be noted in conjunction with the admission of the complainants as to the existence of a " war in Cameroun " in which one side are supporters of a rival " popular revolutionary government ".
  288. 288 Subject to the foregoing, the Committee observes that the allegations considered under the present head relate to what the complainants regard as the continuation of a policy of colonialism in Cameroun and contain, in that connection, criticism of various foreign powers and of the present Government for its alleged policy of alignment with those powers.
  289. 289 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations are so purely political in character that it is undesirable to pursue this aspect of the matter further.
• Allegations relating to the Economic Situation
  290. 290 The complainants allege that, as a consequence of the " ruinous war ", unemployment is increasing, that wages are blocked and prices have risen, that family and maternity allowances are inadequate and that there is discrimination in all these respects between Cameroun and European workers-in support of all of which contentions a number of statistics are given. The miseries of the people are increased, in the view of the complainants, by the effects of the economic-military treaty between the Governments of Cameroun and France signed on 25 December 1959 and renewed on 25 June 1960.
  291. 291 In the past the Committee has declined to pursue allegations relating to wage policy as such as distinguished from methods of collective bargaining r, or racial discrimination not involving the exercise of trade union rights. The present allegations relate to the effects of the Government's social and economic policy in general and are not directly coupled with any allegations as to infringements of specific trade union rights, such as the right to bargain collectively or the right to be protected against anti-union discrimination in respect of employment.
  292. 292 In these circumstances the Committee considers that the question does not directly involve an infringement of trade union rights and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Arrests and Maltreatment of Workers and Trade Union Leaders
  293. 293 The complainants allege that workers and trade union leaders are arrested (or warrants have been issued), prosecuted, tortured, imprisoned or exiled. It is contended that when arrested they are proclaimed " rebels " or " outlaws " and subjected to bestial torture: electric current passed through the body, immersion in salt water with the head wrapped in cloths soaked with water containing cement, deprivation of food and water. The complainants go on to make reference to specific cases.
  294. 294 It is alleged that Mr. Mayao Beck, General Secretary of the C.G.C.L, has been provisionally liberated on 800,000 francs bail, and that Mr. Etame Dimouamoua Ebenezer and Mr. Ngosso Martin, Secretaries of the C.G.C.L, are in prison in Douala, for reasons unknown; that Mr. Ndooh Isaac, member of the executive of the Building Workers' Union, and Mr. Mouangue David, foreman carpenter, were terribly tortured and then imprisoned, because of their trade union and patriotic activities, and have now become political refugees, leaving their wives and children in Cameroun; that Mr. Ekwalla Robert, another Secretary of the C.G.C.L, is a fugitive, having narrowly escaped arrest on 28 June 1959 by the "Franco-Cameroun police ".
  295. 295 The Government makes no reference in its reply to the alleged torture of prisoners, but confines itself to the specific cases cited.
  296. 296 The Government declares that Mr. Mayao Beck was in fact arrested not in the Republic of Cameroun but in the British Territory of Cameroun, where he was found in possession of subversive documents and sentenced finally to six months' imprisonment. The Government, therefore, disclaims all responsibility in this case.
  297. 297 Messrs. Etame Ebenezer and Ngosso Martin, declares the Government, were arrested by police officers, following searches made pursuant to section 4 of Ordinance No. 60-52 of 7 May 1960, and charged with endangering the internal security of the State, the searches having produced evidence of their complicity in the rebellion in the western part of the country. Now, states the Government, they are in custody and awaiting trial by the criminal court on charges in respect of which, if convicted, they would be liable to imprisonment for from one to five years, followed by a term of prohibition of residence (interdiction de séjour), as provided by article 91 of the Penal Code, as amended by Law No. 59-34 of 27 May 1959.
  298. 298 The Government states that Mr. Ndooh Isaac was a foreman in the port of Douala and was dismissed for occupational incapacity. He was a member of the Cameroun People's Party (P.P.C.) both before and after the dissolution of that political party. Regarded as one of the organisers of the disturbances in Douala on 27 June 1959, which marked the outbreak of terrorism in Cameroun, he was arrested on 1 August 1959 and then liberated under the Amnesty Law of 8 May 1960. The Government declares that he was in Accra between 8 and 10 July 1960, as a representative of the Central Committee of the P.P.C. On 11 May 1956 he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment by the Douala Criminal Court for theft, assault and resisting the police; on 5 April 1957 he was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for reorganising a dissolved association, the term being increased to one year by the Court of Appeal. On 26 July 1958 he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, again for reconstituting a dissolved association. Nothing in the foregoing history, declares the Government, had the slightest relation to any trade union activity.
  299. 299 The Government knows of no trade union affiliations of Mr. Mouangue. He was an active member of the P.P.C, sentenced to one year's imprisonment for reconstituting a dissolved association, but amnestied in March 1959. The Government declares him to be a terrorist. He was again arrested in February 1960 and is being tried on charges of endangering the internal safety of the State, murder and attempted murder.
  300. 300 The Government states that Mr. Ekwalla Robert, while being Secretary of the Commercial and Banking Employees' Federation, is also a very active militant of the P.P.C. In 1955 he was imprisoned for organising armed bands, liberated on bail on 31 January 1956, following which the prosecution against him was non-suited on 24 August 1956. On 26 June 1958, after being arrested for carrying arms, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for endangering the internal security of the State, being later amnestied pursuant to a Law of 11 and 12 March 1959. The Government states that he resumed his subversive activities and took to the maquis on 17 June 1960.
  301. 301 The Government therefore contends that all the persons named in the complaint have been proceeded against because of their subversive political or criminal activities having no connection with the trade union activities of any of those concerned. In several earlier cases the Committee has emphasised the importance which it attaches to the principle of a prompt and fair trial by an impartial and independent judicial authority in all cases, including those in which trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which the Government considers to be outside the scope of their trade union activities. In the past, moreover, where allegations concerning the arrest of trade union leaders or workers have been met by governments with statements 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 information of as precise a nature as possible concerning the arrests and particularly as to the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings. Further, in a number of previous cases, the Committee has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending judicial proceedings, provided that these proceedings were attended by proper guarantees of due process of law, where the pending judicial proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well-founded.
  302. 302 In the present case, while the Government has given information as to the outcome of legal proceedings taken in the cases of Mr. Ndooh Isaac and Mr. Ekwalla Robert and information showing that the events relating to Mr. Mayao Beck took place outside the national territory, it declares that criminal proceedings are now pending in the cases of Messrs. Etame Ebenezer, Ngosso Martin and Mouangue. In these circumstances, before making its final recommendations to the Governing Body, the Committee, while thanking the Government for the information already furnished, has requested the Government to be good enough, having regard to the principles enunciated in paragraph 301 above, to furnish information as to the results of the proceedings pending with respect to Messrs. Etame Ebenezer, Ngosso Martin and Mouangue, including if possible copies of the judgments given. The Committee has requested the Government also to furnish its observations on the allegations relating to the torture of detained persons referred to in paragraph 293 above and, with particular reference to Messrs. Ndooh Isaac and Mouangue, in paragraph 294 above.
• Allegations relating to Emergency Legislation
  303. 303 The complainants allege that exceptional legislation (Laws Nos. 121, 122, 123, 124) adopted on 16 May 1959 infringe trade union rights in a number of ways. It is alleged, in particular, that section 8 of Law No. 121 prohibits all meetings and publications, and banishes former convicted persons (repris de justice) and persons not normally there resident from districts subject to a " state of alert ", while section 9 permits the authorities to banish persons deemed dangerous to public security from a district subject to a " state of alert " in which they normally reside or to assign them a forced residence. It is also alleged that these laws permit of the permanent institution of a curfew. The complainants contend that these laws are aimed at trade union leaders, many of whom were formerly " revolutionary patriots " and political detainees, and make it impossible to carry out trade union activities, including the organisation of strikes. It is alleged that a laissez-passer is necessary to enable persons to move about and that these are issued only to " so-called trade unionists who conform to the régime ". Declaring that in fact all meetings of more than two persons are prohibited by the laws in question, the complainants allege that all meetings and processions of workers were prohibited on 1 May 1959 and 1 May 1960.
  304. 304 With reference to the facts alleged, the Government confines itself to a statement that laissez passer are issued to workers' representatives, irrespective of who they are, to enable them, in spite of the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Ordinance of 7 May 1960, to move about as is necessary for the performance of their trade union duties. The text of this Ordinance No. 60-52 of 7 May 1960, " constituting the organic law respecting a state of emergency ", has been forwarded by the Government with its reply, together with the text of a Decree, No. 60-124 of 8 May 1960, proclaiming a state of urgency. The Government refers also to Ordinance No. 60-47 of 8 May 1960, providing for an amnesty in respect of political crimes and offences committed prior to the said legislation of May 1960. The texts forwarded-and the Government's reply-contain no reference to Laws Nos. 121, 122, 123 and 124 of 16 May 1959, on which the allegations are largely based. The complainants, on the other hand, make no reference to the laws cited by the Government.
  305. 305 The Committee considers that some fuller clarification of the position is necessary before it can formulate recommendations in full knowledge of the circumstances. The Committee, therefore, has requested the Government to furnish more detailed observations on the allegations made with respect to the matters referred to in paragraph 303 above, to indicate whether Laws Nos. 121, 122, 123 and 124 are still in force or whether they have been partially or entirely superseded by the legislation of 1960, and, if they are still in force, to be good enough to furnish the texts thereof.