Da (in) constitucionalidade do número 2, do artigo 29 da Lei do Trabalho face ao número 4 do artigo 121 da CRM

Abstract

The work intends to discuss the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of number 2 of art. 29 of the LT in relation to art. 121 no 4 of the CRM”, intends to inquire to what extent that normative precept, which allows the exercise of work activity by children under 15 years of age, can be considered constitutional, based on its infraconstitutional nature, when in the opposite sense article 121 no 4 of the Fundamental Law absolutely prohibits the work of children, whether of school age or any other age. Remember that this provision is literally a transposition of article 26 of the already revoked Labor Law. It is our understanding that the concept of Child adopted by our legislator is associated with the idea that only an individual under the age of 18 is considered a child. It is this concept that must be combined with the child that the Labor Constitution refers to. Now, if article 124, number 4 of the CRM prohibits the work of children (those under the age of 18), the constitutionality of number 2, of article 29 of the Labor Law, which allows the conclusion of an employment contract, must be called into question. by minors who have reached the age of fifteen with the authorization of their legal representative. For these reasons and because constitutional norms prevail over all other remaining norms in the Mozambican legal system under the terms of number 4 of article 2, of the CRM. It is understood that number 2 of article 29 of the LT is materially unconstitutional. We understand that article 121, number 4 of the CRM, regarding the binding degree, is an imperative norm that does not allow its removal. It is a preceptive, prohibitive norm (non facere), as it prohibits the exercise of activity by minors, whether of schooling age or any other age