Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 338, Novembre 2005

512. The complaint is contained in communications from the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers’ Training Faculty (SNUIPEN) dated 10 August 2004, 18 January and 13 June 2005.

1. 513. The Government replied in a communication dated 1 March 2005.
2. 514. Cameroon has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), 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. 515. In his communication dated 10 August 2004, Mr. Joseph Ze, general secretary of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers’ Training Faculty (SNUIPEN) explained that this organization is the largest and the best structured in this sector with more than 27,000 members (infants school and primary school teachers, and teacher trainers) out of 50,500 teachers, across all levels of education. The SNUIPEN was set up in May 1999, obtained approved status in July 2000 and held its first congress in August 2001; in November 2001, it took part in setting up the Confederation of Independent Unions of Cameroon and, in May 2004, the National Coordinating Committee of Teaching Unions.
2. 516. While it was preparing for its second congress, the SNUIPEN underwent an internal crisis, which was used as a pretext by some members of the police force to violate trade union rights, aided and abetted by some members of the union. Mr. Roger Messi Bikoe, in violation of union rules, secretly convened “national councils”, held in May 2004, during which the participants decided to remove Mr. Ze from office, without informing him of the decision, and tried to take possession of the SNUIPEN’s assets. Its funds were transferred to a new bank account as a precautionary measure. After Mr. Bikoe and the dissidents had failed to achieve their objectives, they called in the police and accused Mr. Ze, without any evidence, of having embezzled 6 million CFA francs.
3. 517. Mr. Ze was arrested on the morning of Friday, 16 April 2004, and taken to the police station where he was summarily and brutally interrogated by Captain Mengnfo Faï and Sergeant Ndjekida. The initial basis for the complaint against him was dropped, due to lack of evidence, and replaced by a new demand to release 3,800,000 CFA francs, which was the amount of the subsidy accorded to the SNUIPEN by the Ministry of Education. Mr. Ze was put into a prison cell for the whole weekend because he had refused to comply with this demand. He was interrogated again on Monday, 19 April, at intervals between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. Finally, he agreed to go to the bank around 3 p.m. accompanied by Sergeant Ndjekida, and withdrew 2,300,000 CFA francs, which he handed over to the officer. When the officer returned to the police station, however, he declared there were 2,250,000 CFA francs, after having taken 50,000 CFA francs for himself on the way back. The dissidents considered this amount to be insufficient and demanded that Mr. Ze sign a statement acknowledging that he owed the union the amount in question, which, finally, exhausted and under pressure, he did. He was then released on 19 April.
4. 518. Mr. Ze reported these facts to the Ministry of Education and lodged a complaint with the Secretary of State and Defence (SED), which is in charge of the police. The SED is currently conducting an inquiry. Captain Mengnfo Faï has been suspended from his duties until the inquiry is concluded. Sergeant Ndjekida keeps threatening Mr. Ze for having defied the police. The dissidents keep spending the union funds, which they obtained fraudulently. The complainant considers that, even if the conclusions of the inquiry were brought before a court, there is no guarantee that the complaint would be investigated with all due respect for the law, given previous negative experiences.
5. 519. The complainant organization submits that the national councils held in April and May 2004 were convened in violation of union rules; that the complaint made by Mr. Bikoe should have been declared inadmissible as he did not have the right to bring charges on behalf of the SNUIPEN; that the police blatantly violated Convention No. 87 in arresting Mr. Ze, the elected general secretary of the union; and extorted union funds by forcing him to release these funds to a dissident faction.
6. 520. In its complaint dated 18 January 2005, the SNUIPEN reported that Mr. Ze was arrested once again on 12 January 2005, placed in a prison cell for 48 hours and then transferred to remand at the Yaoundé prison. According to the SNUIPEN, this arrest and detention were based on events related to the current complaint.
7. 521. In its communication dated 13 June 2005, the SNUIPEN reported that Mr. Ze was still in preventive detention (for three months at that point) and that the examining magistrate was making no efforts to begin a judicial inquiry, even though there was no reason why Mr. Ze could not appear as a free man.
8. B. The Government’s reply
9. 522. In its reply dated 1 March 2005, the Government stated that Mr. Ze was replaced as general secretary of the union at the end of the second SNUIPEN congress, which was held on 4 August 2004. The new leadership then demanded the restitution of union funds of which the complainant was in charge. Mr. Ze, however, disputed the legitimacy of the new leadership, which called on the police to partly recover the funds. The procedure to recover these funds entailed the complainant being taken into custody illegally. The funds thus recovered were handed over to the beneficiary trade union.
10. 523. As regards the alleged violation of trade union rights, the Government stated that the second SNUIPEN congress was held in accordance with its by-laws; Mr. Ze did not challenge the legitimacy of the new union leadership in accordance with legal procedure: instead of appealing to the courts, he resisted the requests for restitution of union funds. By his own actions, Mr. Ze was the one who started what he referred to as the “internal crisis” of his trade union. The Government cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the choices made by the parties to call in the police rather than applying to the competent courts to settle their differences.
11. 524. The Government endeavours to promote trade union pluralism and the proper exercise of freedom of association, in particular through the Committee for Synergy within the Ministry of Labour. In addition, the Government endeavours to promote respect for human rights and is constantly working with the police to increase awareness of due regard for the law when they take people into custody. The complainant is no longer in prison and the Government guarantees the Committee on Freedom of Association that the SNUIPEN will return to normal functioning once the complainant has returned the funds.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 525. The Committee notes that this complaint concerns the arrest, detention and interrogation of the general secretary of Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers’ Training Faculty (SNUIPEN), Mr. Joseph Ze, and the interference of certain police officers in an internal trade union dispute.
2. 526. As regards the internal dispute within the SNUIPEN, the Committee notes that Mr. Ze disputes the legitimacy of the new leadership, which he claims was chosen during a so-called national congress which had been convened secretly and in violation of the union’s by-laws. The Government, however, considers that the congress in question was held in accordance with the union’s by-laws, and that Mr. Ze was removed from office according to the union’s rules and replaced as head of the union. The Committee also notes that no court ruling has been handed down regarding the legality of the congress held on 4 August 2004, Mr. Ze’s removal from office and the possible validity of the accusations against him of embezzlement of union funds brought by the dissident faction, which the Government now considers, for practical purposes, to be the legitimate leadership of the SNUIPEN.
3. 527. The Committee recalls that it is not for it to comment on internal union disputes, as long as the Government has not intervened in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functions of a trade union, and that the involvement of the courts may allow the situation to be clarified from a legal point of view and may allow the leadership and representation of the trade union in question to return to normal [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 965].
4. 528. In this particular case, the Committee observes that Mr. Ze was questioned by the police, kept in custody and was brutally and summarily interrogated, without a court having had the opportunity to give a ruling as to the legality of the congress held on 4 August 2004 which had removed Mr. Ze from office, or on the accusations brought against him by the new leadership of the SNUIPEN. Furthermore, the Government acknowledges that what it refers to as a “procedure to recover” these funds entailed the complainant being taken into custody illegally. The Committee considers that, by acting in this way, summarily to say the least, the members of the police implicated here effectively took the side of the dissident faction, and this is an attitude that the Government appears to have subsequently adopted, as can be seen in its reply to the complaint.
5. 529. The Committee emphasizes the obligation of total neutrality for all governments with respect to internal union disputes. The Committee reminds the parties that they may request the competent court to examine the question of the legality of the convening of the second SNUIPEN congress and the alleged removal from office of Mr. Ze, so that the court may make a ruling based on proven facts and the relevant provisions of the SNUIPEN’s by-laws. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of any court ruling in this regard.
6. 530. Noting further that one of the police officers concerned has been suspended from his duties until the inquiry by the Secretary of State and Defence into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ze’s detention on 16 April 2004 is concluded, the Committee requests the Government keep it informed of the inquiry’s conclusions.
7. 531. As regards the accusations of embezzlement of funds brought against Mr. Ze, the Committee notes that, here also, certain police officers took up the cause of the dissident faction of the SNUIPEN and, subsequent to the pressure put on him during his interrogation and detention, forced the complainant to release the union’s funds in order to hand them over to the dissidents. This is tantamount to seizure and confiscation of union funds, without any court ruling and without any legal right to do so, to profit a third party. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, while persons holding trade union office cannot claim immunity with respect to ordinary criminal law, they should benefit from normal judicial proceedings and have the right to due process, just like other people, in particular: be informed of charges brought against them; have the time needed for preparation of their defence; be able to communicate freely with counsel of their own choosing; and be judged without delay by an impartial and independent court [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 83, 102 and 117]. As these principles were not respected in this particular case, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to avoid such summary proceedings reoccurring in the future, by giving the police specific instructions with regard to due respect for the law when they make arrests or lay charges.
8. 532. As regards the re-arrest of Mr. Ze on 12 January 2005 for reasons which the complainant alleges relate to the complaint, an arrest which led to a long period of preventive detention, the Committee considers that union leaders should not be subject to retaliatory measures, and in particular arrest and detention without trial, for having exercised their rights which derive from the ratification of ILO instruments on freedom of association, in this case for having lodged a complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association. In addition, the Committee recalls that, although the fact of holding union office does not confer immunity with respect to ordinary criminal law, the prolonged detention of unionists without bringing them to trial constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights, keeping people on remand should thus be limited to very brief periods of time and only be used to facilitate the course of a judicial inquiry, and should observe all the guarantees of legal procedures [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 87, 89 and 91]. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to avoid such incidents reoccurring, by giving the police specific instructions with regard to due respect for the law when they make arrests or detain people on remand.
9. 533. Given the de facto situation which resulted from the unwarranted interference of the police in this internal union dispute, and to avoid misappropriation of the funds intended for the protection and promotion of workers’ rights, the Committee requests the Government take the necessary measures to find out how the assets of the SNUIPEN are managed, for example under judicial control, should the competent court consider it necessary once it has given a ruling on all the matters under consideration.
10. 534. The Committee requests the Government keep it informed of action taken on all the recommendations below.