Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 362, November 2011

Case No 2382 (Cameroon) - Complaint date: 10-AUG-04 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 23. At its last examination of the case, during its June 2010 meeting [see 357th Report, paras 17–29], the Committee, noting with concern the Government’s statement that it was not responsible for conducting an inquiry, notwithstanding the previous information concerning an inquiry conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence into the conditions surrounding the detention of Mr Ze in April 2004, had recalled once again the need for the Government to take the necessary steps to conduct an inquiry without delay, especially in the light of what it referred to as the existing record of a preliminary inquiry on the detention. The Committee also urged the Government to provide its observations on the allegations concerning the interrogation of Mr Ze by the police in March 2007 and March 2008 and his detention from 17 to 24 March 2008. As regards the allegations concerning the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary on the grounds of his periodic absences from work, the Committee had requested the Government and the complainant organization to indicate whether Mr Ze had returned to his post and followed the established procedure for requesting release from work and, if so, whether the suspension of salary payments had been ended and the release from normal duties had been granted. The Committee had again invited the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of any proceedings before the competent judicial authorities that would clarify the situation with regard to the legitimate representation of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers Training Faculty (SNUIPEN), of any definitive ruling handed down in that respect, and of any other mechanisms invoked by the parties to settle the dispute.
2. 24. In its communication dated 29 October 2010, the complainant organization denounces the Government’s continued disregard for the Committee’s recommendations and the fact that it merely reiterates its previous observations. As regards the allegations concerning the need to conduct an inquiry, the complainant organization adds that, in arguing that it is not responsible for conducting an inquiry into the multiple interrogations and detentions to which Mr Ze was subjected, the Government is violating its own legal and regulatory provisions, specifically sections 25 and 26 of Decree No. 94/199 of 7 October 1994 establishing general public service regulations, as amended and supplemented by Decree No. 2000/287 of 12 October 2000, which provides for the right of public servants (the status held by Mr Ze) to protection against threats, contempt, acts of violence, assault, insults or defamation while discharging their functions. It also provides that the State, after having assessed the damage resulting from these acts, is obliged to remedy the harm caused to the public servant. As regards his release from work and the threat of sanctions, the complainant organization states that Mr Ze is currently discharging his functions, as confirmed following an on-site mission by the new Minister for Basic Education. On that occasion, Mr Ze signed an undertaking on regular attendance, irrespective of his national trade union duties.
3. 25. In its communication dated 19 November 2010, the complainant organization states that the Government has once again violated its union rights. Following a sit in organized by the Confederation of Public Sector Unions of Cameroon (CSP), which took place on 11 November and in which the SNUIPEN participated, Mr Ze was once again arrested along with other union members, detained in extreme conditions, and accused of demonstrating illegally and disturbing public order. This case is still before the courts pending a hearing. The complainant organization states further that the Government has again interfered in the SNUIPEN’s internal affairs and that, during a meeting in November 2010, the Minister for Basic Education, like her predecessor, presented Mr Ateba as the only leader of the SNUIPEN recognized by her ministerial department, whereas a ruling handed down by the Yaoundé-Ekounou Court of First Instance (No. 320/CIV of 26 November 2009), a copy of which is enclosed by the complainant organization, recognizes Mr Ze as Secretary-General of the SNUIPEN.
4. 26. In its communications of 30 July 2010 and 11 January 2011, the Government maintains that the case involving Mr Ze is a matter of general law and that it is not competent to conduct an inquiry. As regards Mr Ze’s release from work, the Government expresses surprise at the fact that he has not followed its instructions in order to regularize his situation. The Government has not replied to the new information sent by the complainant organization in its communication of 19 November 2010. The Government concludes by emphasizing that the complainant has shown bad faith and that, since it has no new information on further developments, it requests the Committee to take a final decision concerning this case.
5. 27. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant organization and the Government’s reply on certain points. The Committee recalls that the present case, which it has been examining since 2005, concerns the arrest, detention and interrogation of the Secretary General of the SNUIPEN, Mr Joseph Ze, and interference by the authorities in an internal union dispute.
6. 28. As regards the recommendations which it has been making for six years regarding an inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence into the events surrounding the interrogation and detention of Mr Ze from 16 April 2004, the Committee deeply regrets the absence of information from the Government in this regard and the fact that, since then, the Government has only referred to limitations on its competence to conduct such an inquiry, given that the allegations are matters of general law, stating that if there has in fact been abuse of authority and torture, the victim is able to seek redress before the courts, and that, with legislation as it now stands, there should be a record of a preliminary inquiry, which the complainant appears to be intentionally disregarding. The Committee wishes to recall once again that, in a previous examination of the case, it had observed that Mr Ze was questioned by the police, kept in custody and brutally and summarily interrogated, without a court having had the opportunity to hand down a ruling as to the accusations brought against him. Furthermore, the Government had acknowledged that what it referred to as a “procedure to recover” these funds had entailed the complainant being taken into custody illegally. The Committee had also noted that one of the officers involved in the detention (Captain Mengnfo Faï) had been suspended pending the conclusions of an investigation by the Secretary of State for Defence into the conditions of detention of Mr Ze. Lastly, the Committee, noting that certain police officers effectively took the side of the dissident faction of SNUIPEN and following pressure during the interrogations and the detentions had forced Mr Ze to release funds belonging to the union in order to give them to the dissidents, had indicated that such action was tantamount to seizure and confiscation of union funds, without any court ruling, to profit a third party [see 338th Report, paras 528, 530 and 531].
7. 29. The Committee recalls that it has since that time been requesting information on the outcome of the inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence because, in the light of the serious allegations concerning acts of torture and extortion of which Mr Ze is said to have been the victim, such an inquiry would make it possible to ascertain the facts and responsibilities, punish those responsible, and above all prevent any future recurrence of such acts. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not provided any information in this regard, given that the Government itself had acknowledged that abuse had occurred. The Committee reiterates yet again its request for information on the outcome of any inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence into the conditions surrounding the detention of Mr Ze in April 2004 and also urges the Government to conduct an inquiry into the allegations concerning the arrest of Mr Ze in March 2007 and March 2008 and his detention from 17 to 24 March 2008.
8. 30. As regards the allegations concerning the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary on the grounds of his periodic absences from work, the Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to examine without delay, in the light of the underlying facts, the possibility of releasing Mr Ze from work for the purpose of carrying out his trade union duties, if necessary explaining to Mr Ze the procedures for obtaining such a discharge. The Committee notes that the complainant organization states that Mr Ze is currently discharging his functions, as confirmed following an on-site mission by the new Minister for Basic Education. On that occasion, Mr Ze signed an undertaking on regular attendance, irrespective of his national trade union duties. The Committee trusts that arrangements have been made to ensure Mr Ze’s release from work, if necessary, for the purpose of carrying out his trade union duties, and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
9. 31. When it last examined this case, the Committee had taken note of the Government’s statement to the effect it had always refrained from interfering in trade union activities and considered that the allegations made against it reflected the bad faith of union officials who lacked legitimacy from their own union. Recalling the background to this case, in which it noted that certain police officers had taken up the cause of one faction in the SNUIPEN, and the allegations that the Government had clearly favoured one faction of the SNUIPEN in the media, the Committee had trusted that the Government would maintain a position of strict neutrality with regard to internal union disputes, and in particular within the SNUIPEN. The Committee notes the complainant organization’s allegation that the Government has once again interfered in its internal affairs and that, during a meeting in November 2010, the Minister for Basic Education, like her predecessor, presented Mr Ateba as the only leader of the SNUIPEN recognized by her ministerial department. The Committee also takes note of the ruling handed down by the Yaoundé-Ekounou Court of First Instance (No. 320/CIV of 26 November 2009), a copy of which is enclosed by the complainant organization, which appears to recognize Mr Ze as the Secretary-General of the SNUIPEN in the context of a decision in a case involving the recovery of a Ministry of Basic Education subsidy for the trade union. While the Committee notes that this ruling has, in one specific case, determined the legitimate representation of the SNUIPEN, it nevertheless notes with regret the allegation that, as recently as November 2010, the Minister of Basic Education presented Mr Ateba as the only leader of the SNUIPEN recognized by her ministerial department. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the extent to which the question of the legitimate representation of the SNUIPEN has been clarified and, should this be the case, invites the Government to inform it of any definitive ruling handed down in this respect and of any other mechanisms undertaken by the parties to resolve the dispute.
10. 32. Lastly, the Committee notes the new allegations concerning the arrest of Mr Ze following a sit in organized by the CSP, which took place on 11 November 2010. As a similar complaint concerning this event has been presented to the Committee by another organization, the Committee will continue to examine these allegations under Case No. 2812 [see 362nd Report, para. 394].