“You'll Be Fired if You Refuse” - Human Rights Watch

In each of its last two annual reports, the director of the Mines Safety Department has
stressed that the cuts in inspectors and funding have “led to us failing to attend to a lot
of proactive inspections... [and] reducing distant visits to a minimum,” while noting also
that “[i]n some Sections we hardly manage to carry out statutory examinations.” 230
A final problem noted by Kateka is that the fines the MSD can impose “are way too low.”
Low fines will have little or no deterrent effect on company practice. He said that for
violating mining regulations, inspectors can charge mine operators a maximum of
135,000 Kwacha (about US$28); for violating explosive regulations, the maximum fine is
90,000 Kwacha ($19). 231 Kateka said that in his five years, he knew of only one case in
which a mine operator challenged an inspector’s fine in court—not surprising given the
extremely low fines and current record-high copper prices bringing in more than $7,500
per metric ton. He added that the government was in the process of increasing the
allowed fines, but said that it had been a “long process” he hoped would be completed
by the end of 2011. 232
The understaffing and underfunding of the Mines Safety Department has meant that the
Zambian government has not been able to meet its responsibilities under ILO Convention
No. 176 to “provide appropriate inspection services to supervise the application of the
measures to be taken in pursuance of the Convention and provide these services with
the resources necessary for the accomplishment of their tasks.” 233 The government’s
continually decreasing budgetary support for the Mines Safety Department, thereby
further compromising safety standards at the copper mines, may reflect a failing by
Zambia to progressively achieve the full realization of the right of workers to “safe and
healthy working conditions” under the ICESCR. 234
230 MSD, 2010 Annual Report, February 2011, p. 18; MSD, 2009 Annual Report, January 2010, p. 18.
231 Human Rights Watch interviews with Bright Kateka, Deputy Chief Inspector, Mines Safety Department, Kitwe, July 28, 2011.
232 Ibid.
233 ILO Convention No. 176, art. 16(b).
234 ICESCR, arts. 2 and 7(b). According to the UN Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, progressive realization “is on the
one hand a necessary flexibility device, reflecting the realities of the real world and the difficulties involved for any country in ensuring
full realization of economic, social and cultural rights. On the other hand, the phrase must be read in the light of the overall objective,
indeed the raison d’être, of the Covenant which is to establish clear obligations for States parties in respect of the full realization of the
rights in question. It thus imposes an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards that goal. Moreover, any
deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by
reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available
resources.” Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. General Comment 3, “The nature of States parties’ obligations” (Fifth
session, 1990), U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, annex III at 86 (1990), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General
Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 14 (2003), para. 9.
“YOU’LL BE FIRED IF YOU REFUSE” 72