Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1996, Publication: 83rd ILC session (1996)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Nigeria (Ratification: 1960)

The Government representative recalled that Nigeria had made several submissions to the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 1793 and had also addressed the Conference Committee last year on the present case. It had been a matter of regret that the Committee's conclusions on that occasion had been placed in a special paragraph of its General Report despite the efforts made by his Government to comply with the requests of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts, including the cancellation of Government Notice No. 44.

Turning to the points raised by the Committee of Experts in its observation, he referred to the administrative dissolution of the executive councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) by Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994. The Government had previously informed the Committee that the above Decrees were transitional in their nature, that the three organizations had reached an advanced stage in the process of democratization and that once the election of members to the national executive councils of those organizations had been completed, the Decrees would be repealed immediately. It had been hoped that this would occur before the present Conference. Unfortunately, the trade union leaders themselves had indicated that they needed more time to prepare for the elections. A national delegates conference for the NLC was now programmed to be held in July 1996, when the members of its national executive council would be elected and sworn in. Broad media attention had already been given to the forthcoming conference and the full democratization of the above organizations was therefore nearly completed.

Referring to the single trade union system established by law in Nigeria, he pointed out that there had previously been four central labour organizations, which had decided to merge in order to enhance trade union unity. Their decision had resulted in the restructuring of the movement and the amalgamation of 1,000 smaller unions into 70 industrial unions, which were stronger and more viable for effective collective bargaining. Under the present unified trade union structure, trade union leaders had the authority, under their constitutions and the law, to represent the general interests of their members on any national advisory board set up by the Government; to collect and disseminate to their members information and advice on economic and social matters; to provide advice and encouragement on financial assistance to their members; to promote the education of their members in labour relations and connected fields; and to render any other assistance to their members covered by their articles of affiliation. The NLC was the most representative workers' organization in the country and it was feared that attempts to interfere with the status quo could result in industrial unrest.

Turning to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the Registrar of Trade Unions, he stated that it was a misrepresentation to state that the Registrar supervised the accounts of trade unions. Trade union accounts were controlled by their trustees, who were composed of the national president, the national treasurer and elected trustees, who were accountable to their national executive councils. He referred to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1990, to describe in detail the functions and responsibilities of trade union treasurers, which made it evident that the expenditure, control, auditing and supervision of trade union accounts were the direct responsibilities of the trade unions themselves. The work of the Registrar of Trade Unions was merely to ensure that the principles of probity and accountability were maintained by the union in accordance with its rules. The Registrar therefore exercised no control or supervision over trade union accounts.

Turning to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning alleged restrictions on the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration beyond essential services, he noted that the Trade Disputes Act, 1990, laid down the procedure for the expeditious settlement of trade disputes so as to ensure that individual and collective grievances between workers and employers did not remain in a state of indefinite stalemate. The Act provided, in section 3, that the parties to a dispute were required to use existing internal machinery for its settlement by appointing a mediator mutually agreed upon by workers and employers. When the internal machinery failed, either party would then declare a trade dispute to the Minister of Labour, who would then refer it to either conciliation or arbitration. Referral of disputes to arbitration was therefore at the request of the parties and not imposed. In the case of trade disputes affecting essential services, the Act specified that the Minister could refer them directly to the National Industrial Court for adjudication. The Act did not restrict the right of workers to strike, but did provide under section 40(1) that workers in essential services had to give their employers at least 15 days' notice of their intention to go on strike. Section 41(1) also laid down that workers had to give employers 15 days' notice before embarking on any work stoppages, especially in circumstances involving danger to persons, property or public health. The fact that there had been nearly 2,000 strikes between 1980 and 1995 clearly illustrated that there was no restriction upon the right to strike of Nigerian workers. The overall intention of the Trade Disputes Act, 1990, was to stabilize industrial relations for the promotion of industrial peace and harmony in the country, which was necessary because it was only in such an environment that the economy could flourish, thereby guaranteeing national prosperity.

The Workers' members said that the case was extremely serious, as shown by the many divergencies from the Convention indicated in the observation of the Committee of Experts. While in the previous year's discussion, the Government representative had given assurances that measures would be taken to guarantee respect for freedom of association in Nigeria, today's statement let it be understood that things had gone in the wrong direction.

New and worrying problems had arisen since last year with regard to freedom of association. Decree No. 4 of January 1996 reinforced the interference by the military Government in the internal affairs of trade unions, required the merger of trade unions, imposed a single trade union system and excluded democratically elected trade union leaders. The situation of certain trade unionists, such as Frank Kokori, Chief Milton Dabibi and Adam Oshimole (Secretary-General of the textiles union and Vice-President of the NLC) was a cause of concern. They had been intimidated, detained in appalling conditions and arrested.

When the Committee of Experts had made its observation, Decree No. 4 had not yet been adopted. Nevertheless, the Committee of Experts had already examined Government Notice No. 44 of 1993 and had emphasized the serious divergencies between national law and practice and the provisions of the Convention. Decree No. 4 merely strengthened the previous abhorrent situation, imposing the additional requirement of a closed list of 29 industrial unions that were affiliated to the NLC. The Committee on Freedom of Association had reached similar conclusions in Case No. 1793.

The Workers' members associated themselves with the comments of the supervisory bodies and requested the Government to bring its national law and practice into conformity with the Convention as rapidly as possible. The Government should also immediately release all trade unionists detained on the sole grounds of having exercised their trade union rights. The Government should abandon its intimidatory practices against trade unionists. Trade unions should be led and organized by their democratically elected leaders. Decree No. 4 of 1996 should therefore be repealed.

The Workers' members considered that there was no sense in an ILO mission visiting Nigeria in a situation in which trade unionists were held in detention. In view of the situation, the Workers' members called for the case to be mentioned in a special paragraph of the Committee's General Report. Next year, they would be prepared to request even firmer action if there had not been a substantial improvement in the situation.

The Employers' members recalled that this case had been discussed on five occasions and that the previous year it had been mentioned in a special paragraph of the Committee's General Report. The case involved a large number of violations of the Convention in matters that were of fundamental importance for freedom of association. Trade unions had been dissolved by decree and state administrators imposed upon them. Although the Government representative stated that this was a transitional measure, in fact the trade unions were in the hands of the Government and enjoyed no freedom. This issue was raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts in its comments concerning the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions. The objective was to impose a single trade union system. The information provided by the Government representative was not encouraging, as had been noted by the Workers' members. No reference had been made to a tripartite consultation body that had been mentioned in the past and the changes in the legislation did not appear to be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had indicated the aspects of the legislation that had to be changed in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee's conclusions should therefore be serious and emphasize its grave concern at the absence of any improvement in the situation. The case should be mentioned in a special paragraph of the General Report.

The Workers' member of Zimbabwe said that the administrative dissolution of the executive councils of the NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN constituted serious violations of the Convention. Moreover, the imprisonment of trade union leaders without trial and the debarring of full-time union leaders from contesting leadership positions in the NLC were all the acts of a Government that had lost direction and was insensitive to the general well-being of its people. All of these acts were shocking and universally condemned. In particular, the detained labour leaders were being held in appalling conditions with very limited contact with the outside world and fears were rising for their health. A request by the Governing Body to send a mission to check their health and conditions of detention had been refused outright by the totalitarian Government. Meanwhile, the harassment of civil rights activists, journalists, student leaders and trade unionists continued, alongside the incarceration of large numbers of people convicted by secret military tribunals. In this situation, there was no evidence that the Government had any intention of honouring the provisions of the Convention in either law or practice. The case should therefore be referred to in the strongest possible terms in a special paragraph.

The Workers' member of Canada added that the situation in Nigeria constituted the gravest of violations of trade union rights. In this respect, it was particularly disturbing that the Government representative had stated at the Conference in 1995 that the situation, far from deteriorating, was progressing towards full democratization. Of the five trade unionists who had been imprisoned without being brought to trial in 1994, four were still detained. There was therefore an enormous divergence between the statements of the Government representative and the real situation. It was only by recognizing the facts of the situation that it would be possible to believe in any possible improvement. The continual violations of basic human rights in the country were an outrage to human dignity and it was clear that the Government was not demonstrating the political will to conform to the provisions of the Convention or to respect the human rights of workers. The Committee must not take the situation lightly.

The Workers' member of Nigeria noted that some of the trade union leaders arrested during the prolonged strike action and the political crisis in 1994 had, due to the efforts of the ILO, been released. He appealed to the Nigerian Government to release the remaining trade union leaders, namely Mr. Kokori and Chief Milton Dabibi, who were still under detention without trial. Despite the apparently hostile industrial relations environment in Nigeria, he emphasized that the problem was multidimensional. The harsh economic effects of the IMF- and World Bank-imposed structural adjustment measures had resulted in hyperinflation, deepening poverty, retrenchment, the sale of public property, the devaluation of the currency and the collapse of the banking system. The trade unions therefore had no option but to approach matters with caution so that they did not create economic and social disorder. He was therefore pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the restructuring of the industrial unions had been completed, with the result that there were now 29 such unions in Nigeria. All of these unions had held conferences and new leaders had emerged. They were now preparing for the elections to the NLC. In this context, the trade union leaders had agreed that the dates proposed by the Government for the holding of the NLC conference in May 1996 were not viable and that it should be postponed until July. Preparations for the elections were going well and there was no doubt that they would be held on the planned dates. He assured the Committee that the restructuring process was being carried out with the support of the workers and in the interests of trade unions in order to make them more viable, stronger and more purposeful.

The Workers' member of Ghana regretted to observe that the situation in Nigeria had not improved. He had personally led an international trade union mission to the country to investigate the violation of trade union rights. In spite of the special paragraph adopted by the Committee last year, the Government continued to maintain its policy of vigorous intervention in the trade union movement. In addition to detaining trade union leaders, the Government had adopted provisions restricting the union members who could qualify for election to hold office in the NLC. It was quite clear that Decree No. 4 of 1996 was designed to destroy the cohesion of the labour movement in the country. The authentic representative leaders of Nigerian workers had been left behind in the country and it served no useful purpose for leaders of convenience to be present at the Conference. He could only hope that the Government's membership of the Governing Body would hasten its total and unconditional disengagement from the administration of the NLC. He urged the ILO to intensify pressure on the Government to bring to an end its violations of human and trade union rights.

The Workers' member of the United States emphasized the numerous statements made over the years by the various bodies of the ILO that a genuinely free and democratic trade union movement could only develop where basic human rights were respected. Moreover, the Committee on Freedom of Association had frequently reaffirmed that the detention of trade union leaders and members, like Frank Kokori and Chief Milton Dabibi, by the Nigerian military regime for reasons related to their activities in defence of the interests of workers was contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Decree No. 4 was clearly designed to fundamentally restructure the trade union movement according to the dictates of the military Government, and not according to the freely expressed wishes of the workers. The Committee should express its extreme dissatisfaction with the systematic and fundamental violation of the Convention in a special paragraph. What was needed in practice was a dramatic improvement in the Government's attitude to human rights, including freedom of association; an end to violence and intimidation; the immediate release of all trade unionists and other prisoners; and a return without further delay to the rule of law.

The Workers' member of Cameroon observed with shame the claim made by his worker colleague from Nigeria that the trade unions had requested the Government to undertake a reorganization of their structure. The real situation was that individual freedoms were trampled underfoot in a country which should be serving as an example to the rest of Africa. His worker colleagues in Nigeria needed to persuade the Government to allow the workers to organize freely. The continued violations of trade union and human rights were unacceptable.

The Government member of the United States regretted that the situation in Nigeria had gone from bad to worse. The Government continued to pursue a campaign of interference and intimidation clearly designed to make it impossible for free and independent trade unions to operate in the country. Sadly, the statement by the Government representative had not been convincing and it was clear that the Government remained in serious and wilful violation of the Convention. Her Government was deeply concerned at the naked attack on trade union and human rights and hoped that the Committee would call on the Government in the strongest possible terms to take urgent measures in both law and practice to allow workers in Nigeria to establish and join the unions of their choice, to structure those unions as they saw fit and to pursue their trade union activities without government interference.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom emphasized that, despite attempts by the Government representative to confuse the issue, the central points of the case were clear. There was evidently continued gross interference by the Government in the structure of the trade union movement and in the internal affairs of trade unions. Instead of making progress towards compliance with the Convention, the Government had moved further away from its obligations. The climate of violence, intimidation and fear had been heightened by the horrors of the judicial murders that had taken place earlier in the year. Fears for her imprisoned trade union colleagues grew by the day. She called upon the Government representative to explain why Mr. Kokori and Chief Milton Dabibi continued to be detained in prison without charges or trial and without any medical attention, particularly in view of their fragile health.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the five Nordic Government members of the Committee, recalled the special paragraph adopted by the Committee concerning the non-compliance of the Government with the Convention, as well as the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1793. He urged the Government to take the necessary measures rapidly on all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee.

The Government member of the Netherlands fully supported the statement by the previous speaker and regretted the intervention by the Minister of Labour of Nigeria in last year's plenary session of the Conference concerned with the report of this Committee, which he had had the honour to present as the Committee's Rapporteur.

The Workers' member of Pakistan stated that the situation in Nigeria was of great concern, as its law and practice was in contradiction with the Convention. He urged the Government to release the detained trade union leaders and members and to show its respect for the trade union movement by amending the law in a manner that was in the real interests of the workers and of social justice. He fully endorsed the appeal for the Committee's conclusions on this case to be placed in a special paragraph in its General Report.

The Government member of Sierra Leone expressed gratitude for the assistance provided by the Nigerian Government in his own country, particularly during the recent elections. Moreover, he called upon the Committee of Experts to recognize the complexity of the situation with regard to the trade union movement in African countries. The emergence of a multiplicity of central trade union structures could give rise to ethnic and social conflict. Some trade union activists could even use the movement for their own personal motives. The Workers' member of Nigeria had already said that trade union leaders had appealed to the Government to release the detainees and that his country had in fact done so. He called on the members of the Committee to recognize the fragility of the situation in Africa and to exert indirect pressure on Nigeria through silent diplomacy.

The Government member of Canada supported the statement by the Workers' member of her country, as well as those of the Government members of the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and the United States.

The Government representative said that the debate had reflected much emotion and speculation, which did not reflect the true situation. His Government recognized the importance of complying with ILO Conventions, although he believed that the special circumstances of his country also needed to be taken into account. Under pressure from the ILO, many union leaders had already been released. Moreover, he denied that Chief Milton Dabibi had been detained in connection with trade union activities.

Referring to Decree No. 4, he refuted many of the comments that had been made and stated that its purpose was to ensure that unions respected their own constitutions. He pointed out that, under the Trade Unions Act, a union member had to be an employee in the industrial sector in which the union operated. This meant that the actual employees of trade unions could not themselves be members of those unions, since they were only officials in the union and not employed in the sector concerned. The Decree therefore prevented appointed officers who were employees of unions from holding elected office and from voting at the meetings of the national executive council. As employees of unions, they should not usurp the powers of those who had appointed them. The Decree had not provided that the Government would take over the management of unions, but was merely intended to let union members run their own affairs.

He emphasized that Decree No. 4 provided for the restructuring of the unions as requested by the workers themselves, and not by the Government. In view of the structural adjustment programme and the economic problems of the country, most unions had not been strong enough to manage their own affairs. A realignment had therefore become necessary to make them more viable. Although strong unions were in fact a threat to the Government, his Government had not wanted to stand in the way of the workers' wishes in this respect. Furthermore, the federal Government had provided much financial support to the trade unions for their growth and development. Unfortunately, the economy was too fragile to allow unnecessary strikes and outside intervention through detractors who attempted to make use of trade unions for their own purposes.

He reaffirmed that the Government supported the holding of elections for trade union leaders and that Nigeria had now started its transition to civil rule. The Government was not against the workers, but wished to ensure that the trade unions maintained the principle of constitutionality and legality in their actions. Moreover, Decree No. 4 was designed to ensure that industrial unions were for junior and intermediate level workers. It was clear that administrative and professional level staff, including the general secretaries of unions who were executives in their own right, did not belong to unions of junior workers. Measures had therefore been taken to prevent them usurping the powers of the workers and so that they could not stand for office in the NLC.

He added that the National Labour Advisory Council, which was tripartite in nature, was continuing to work on the issue of bringing the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. Although the Government had not overlooked this issue, a large number of other problems were occupying its attention. He also affirmed that Decree No. 4 had not changed the definition of trade unions or cancelled their certificates of registration. All the unions continued to exist, although some of them had been restructured in accordance with the recommendation of the National Labour Advisory Council.

He reassured the Committee that the Government was fully aware of its responsibilities and would do everything possible to ensure that all the recommendations of the Committee of Experts were respected. Nigeria was still a developing country and needed to be treated with patience. However, it would honour its obligations, for example by repealing Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 once the NLC had held its conference.

The Workers' members stated that they had had the opportunity to make a close examination of Decree No. 4 of 1996. The Decree included detailed modifications to the previous legislation and had resulted in a deterioration in the situation as regards freedom of association in Nigeria. As such, there appeared to be no possibility for real dialogue concerning the difficulties currently experienced by the country.

The Employers' members stated that, in view of the statement by the Government representative, they had nothing to add to their previous comments.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee had to note once again that it had not been able to discern any progress despite the observations made over a long period of time by the Committee of Experts and the many discussions that had taken place in the Conference Committee on the important discrepancies between the law and practice and the Convention. It also noted with deep concern that the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to refer to very serious violations of human rights against trade unionists, as well as against the fundamental principles contained in the Convention. In particular, it regretted that the legislative provisions that provided for a single trade union system and allowed government interference in the organization and activities of trade unions remained unchanged. It noted with deep regret that some trade union organizations were still run by a single administrator appointed by the Government and that the Decrees adopted in 1994 to dissolve the executive councils of certain trade unions had still not been repealed. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures with all urgency to remedy in both law and practice the very serious violations of the Convention and in particular to repeal the above Decrees and to re-establish the right of trade union organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom, without interference by the public authorities. It insisted that the Government take immediate measures with a view to the absolute respect of the civic liberties essential to trade union rights. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would communicate in its next report decisive and concrete progress in this regard. The Committee decided to place its conclusions in a special paragraph of its General Report.