Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 1997, Publicación: 85ª reunión CIT (1997)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Nigeria (Ratificación : 1960)

A Government representative noted that the Committee had shown understanding of the cases that it had examined concerning several member States. He expressed confidence in the objectives of the ILO, especially as they related to human rights and social justice. His Government was deeply committed to acting in consonance with the Convention, which it had ratified in 1960. On previous occasions when the case had been examined by the Committee, the Government had emphasized the threat to internal security, which had placed national living standards in great danger. Nevertheless, the Government had not prevented the trade unions from conducting elections at the unit, branch and zonal level. These elections had been carried out successfully by the country's trade unions without any interference by the Government. With regard to trade union elections at the national level, the Government had appealed to the country's workers to enter into consultations with the object of holding such elections within the shortest possible time. In this respect, the most critical factor was the commitment of workers to the full democracy of the labour movement. Any necessary amendments to the legislation relating to trade unions would be adopted in accordance with the provisions that had already been incorporated in the constitutions of workers' organizations.

With reference to the matters raised by the Committee of Experts, he noted that the Decree and Order adopted in August 1996 had been enacted as a result of a six-month dispute which had affected the country's universities. Under these provisions, a failure to abide by negotiation and arbitration procedures constituted an unfair labour practice. In this respect, he stated that the Convention called upon trade unions to observe the laws of the land. He added that recognition had been restored to the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions.

With regard to the restructuring of the previous 41 registered industrial unions into 29 trade unions affiliated to the central labour organization, he informed the Committee that this measure had been taken as a result of a request by the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) to strengthen the collective bargaining machinery. The proposal had been referred to the National Labour Advisory Council, which was a tripartite body, the recommendations of which had been incorporated into Decree No. 4 of 1996. The principal purpose of this measure had been to develop strong and viable industrial unions. In this context, he noted that, in accordance with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which had been ratified by his country in 1994, the collective bargaining system was effective and had given rise to no complaints by workers' or employers' organizations. While the new measure clearly stated the names of the 29 industrial unions concerned, the registration of the former unions had not been cancelled. Trade unions were therefore recognized in Nigerian law and suffered from no let or hindrance in their activities. This was in accordance with the provision of the 1979 Constitution, which stated that the security and welfare of all people was the primary purpose of the Government. The enactment of Decree No. 4 of 1996 had therefore been based on the need to uphold public safety, the law and morality in order to promote social dialogue and harmony. As a result of these measures, Nigerian workers now enjoyed a degree of independence and freedom that they had not known for many years. It was necessary to consolidate these gains in order to enable workers to assume full responsibility for their affairs. The new legislative measures referred to by the Committee of Experts had therefore been adopted with the best of intentions after very close consultation with the persons concerned, in accordance with the Convention, and reflected the wishes of the trade unions. He thanked the Committee for its understanding and assured it that his Government was willing to play its role in expanding and promoting workers' organizations.

The Workers' members recalled that this case had been the subject of a special paragraph in the report of the Committee in 1995, as well as a paragraph in 1996 which had noted with profound concern the continued failure by the Nigerian Government over a number of years to eliminate the serious violations of the Convention.

Since then, the Government had failed to transmit a report to the Committee of Experts. Although the Government representative had referred to a number of steps that had been taken subsequently, these merely served to further highlight the violations of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had noted with deep regret a serious deterioration in the trade union situation in Nigeria. Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994, dissolving the executive councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (KNAPPING) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), had not been repealed and these unions were still being run by the administrators appointed by the Government. A number of Decrees adopted recently further aggravated the situation of trade unions in the teaching sector, universities, hospitals and research institutes. Decree No. 29 of 1996 prohibited trade unions from affiliating with any international organizations. Moreover, the Government had reinforced the system of trade union monopoly set out in the law through Decree No. 4 of 1996, which had once again restructured trade unions.

In Case No. 1793, the Committee on Freedom of Association had continued to call for the release of trade unionists who had been imprisoned since 1994 for having participated in legitimate trade union activities. It had also called for the repeal of Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 and for the holding of trade union elections without interference by the public authorities and for the lifting of the suspension of the automatic check-off of trade union dues. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also regretted the lack of cooperation by the Government in responding to the repeated calls for it to authorize an ILO mission at the earliest possible date. It had later reiterated its request in even stronger terms. (See the 306th report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, March 1997, paragraphs 45 to 47.)

The Workers' members requested the Government to indicate whether it had the real intention of receiving a direct contacts mission from the ILO. They also sought assurances that the Government would quickly reinstate the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing, to freely elect their representatives and to formulate their programmes without interference from the public authorities.

In conclusion, the Workers' members reminded the Committee that, despite the fact that Nigeria was a member of the Governing Body, the horrors of the judicial murders of Ken Sarawiwa and others were still fresh in everyone's minds. They therefore called on the Nigerian Government to take urgent measures in both law and practice to allow Nigerian workers to establish and join unions of their own choosing, to structure those unions as they saw fit and to pursue their trade union activities without government interference. Furthermore, it should release all detained trade unionists immediately. The Committee should include its conclusions on Nigeria in a special paragraph.

The Employers' members deplored the fact that, despite the weighty concern with which the Committee of Experts and this Committee had treated this case during the 1980s, there had not been a single improvement, but instead the situation had worsened. In the last few years, very serious measures had been taken to dissolve by a Decree of 1994 the executive committees of three trade unions, replaced by government-appointed administrators. This was a clear violation of freedom of association. In addition, new Decrees impeded the union affiliation of teaching staff. By decree or legislation, 41 unions were restructured into 29 and the National Labour Congress was created. This trade union monopoly was imposed by the Government and the NLC was the only central union designated by name in law, in clear violation of the Convention. The restructurings preceding the union movement were revoked and a Decree of 1996 went much further in the restrictions it imposed. They regretted that after so much time freedom of association did not exist in Nigeria. The total lack of collaboration of the Government with the Committee of Experts, which noted that no report had been received this year, and with the Committee on Freedom of Association, as well as the negative response towards accepting an ILO mission, amounted to a very serious situation. The moment for change had arrived and the Employers' members supported the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

The Workers' member of Nigeria, on the subject of Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994, stated that a number of Nigerian workers had been involved in the promulgation of these Decrees. Moreover, as soon as the NLC had been dissolved, certain trade unionists had submitted proposals for new executives of the organization, instead of joining together to accept or condemn the Decrees. He therefore emphasized the need for ILO educational programmes and would welcome an ILO mission.

He added that Nigerian workers had accepted Decree No. 4 of 1996 and noted that the constitutions of industrial unions in Nigeria agreed with the provision. Those who opposed the Decree did so because it prevented persons who were not members of the occupation from holding elective office in industrial unions. However, similar provisions had been in existence since 1973. It was therefore clear that their opposition was based on selfish motives. This had not prevented them from touring the country and calling for a boycott of the NLC election. This was another area in which Nigerian workers called for ILO assistance to help trade union members who were genuinely interested in the democratization of the trade union movement and the improvement of workers' welfare.

In view of the evident duplication of certain industrial unions, which had even resulted in court cases, Nigerian workers had started moves in 1993 to consolidate the trade union movement and had been helped in this aim by the Government. With a view to the democratization of the NLC, many meetings of industrial unions and the state councils of the NLC had been held. The Government had given the go-ahead to the process and the workers of Nigeria therefore hoped that the Government and the ILO would assist them in the realization of their dream.

The Workers' member of the United States strongly condemned the gross violation of human rights by the Nigerian military regime, including serious breaches of freedom of association principles. He recalled the observation of the Committee of Experts according to which it noted that there had been no progress made in bringing legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. In fact, he added that the trade union situation continued to deteriorate seriously. The most immediate concern was the welfare of those trade unionists unjustly imprisoned without charge. The continued illegal detention of union leaders, Frank Kokori and Milton Dabibi, in conditions where they were not able to communicate with their family members, access proper medical care, or consult with their attorneys, was an outrage. In addition, it appeared that, in early May 1997, Mr. Kokori's home was vandalized and his wife and son were roughed up and threatened, shortly after she publicly spoke out calling for her husband's release. With regard to legislative measures taken, Decree No. 29, implemented in secret in October 1996, sanctioned criminal and monetary penalties on any trade union or individual trade union activist maintaining connections to any international trade union organization. It served to nullify existing affiliations and banned any future arrangements in this regard without the expressed approval of the administrator of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC). It was difficult for him to reconcile the Government's version of events with the observations of the Committee of Experts and the facts they reflected. The Conference Committee had to request the military regime in the strongest terms to immediately release all trade unionists imprisoned for their trade union activities, to allow them access to adequate medical care until they were released, and to ensure that they were allowed to meet with their families and their attorneys. He concluded by fully supporting the position of the Workers' members in expressing extreme displeasure over the lack of progress and cooperation from the regime in a special paragraph of the Conference Committee's report.

The Workers' member of Colombia stated that in Nigeria freedom of association did not exist in practical terms, and that the Government did not have the political will to fulfil the commitments assumed when it had ratified the Convention which implied the guarantee of the right of Nigerian workers to organize and bargain collectively. The acts and laws denounced by the spokesperson for the Workers' members demanded an urgent response and an official warning to guarantee trade union rights and respect the forms of organization of workers without intervening or interfering. He supported the inclusion of the case in a special paragraph.

The Government member of Finland, on behalf of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, expressed their deepest concern with regard to the serious violations of human rights in Nigeria. They deeply deplored the persistent deterioration of trade union rights, described by the Committee on Freedom of Association as a "systematic approach to diminishing trade union rights". The Governments shared the deep concern of both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association about the trade union situation in Nigeria since no progress had been made in spite of the comments that the ILO had been making for several years. Therefore, they urged the authorities in Nigeria to guarantee the effective enjoyment of human rights at the workplace and requested that immediate and concrete steps be taken to fulfil the commitments entered into by ratifying Convention No. 87.

The Workers' member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Workers' members of the Nordic countries, endorsed the urgent appeal made by the Committee of Experts to the Government of Nigeria to comply with the Convention and cease interference in internal trade union matters. He expressed deep concern at the deterioration in the situation and called for the immediate release of detained trade unionists. He recalled that, despite being mentioned in a special paragraph of the Committee's report in 1995, Nigeria had become a member of the Governing Body and simultaneously achieved another special paragraph in 1996. Some governments might have thought that, as a result of its membership of the Governing Body, Nigeria would change its practices and comply with the fundamental human right of freedom of association. In his view, membership of such a body implied an obligation to act on behalf of all the members of the organization concerned and to defend and promote the basic values and principles of that organization. Unfortunately, Nigeria seemed to have a different view. He therefore urged the Government of Nigeria to acquaint itself with the ILO's principles on freedom of association. In this respect, he noted the Government's failure to fulfil its promise made in 1996 to repeal Decrees Nos. 9 and 10. Furthermore, it had also failed to comply with the request made by the Workers' member of Nigeria in the same year to release Mr. Kokori and Chief Milton Dabibi, who were being held in jail without charges or trial. In conclusion, the Workers' members of the Nordic countries supported the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Workers' member of Tunisia recalled that, since 1994, the trade union situation in Nigeria had been consistently worsening, in particular because of the measures taken by the Government to shackle the trade union movement in the country. The Decrees which the Government had adopted aimed at splitting the trade unions and constituted a serious attack on freedom of association. More precisely, the Decrees adopted over the last few years were in flagrant violation of the provisions of this Convention. The measures taken by the Government, such as the dissolution of the legitimate Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), its appointment of an administrator to oversee trade union affairs, and the ban on the right to organize of workers in sectors designated as essential, demonstrated the Government's wish to attack and annihilate all free and independent trade unionism in Nigeria. The general climate of social tension and violence, together with persecution, arrest, harassment, torture and assassinations, was in stark contrast to the requirements for the respect and effective implementation of the Convention. Finally, he supported the severe comments made by the Committee of Experts and by the Workers' members.

The Government member of the United Kingdom, also speaking on behalf of the Governments of Germany and the Netherlands, fully supported the statement made by the Government member of Finland. The Governments on whose behalf she was speaking were deeply concerned at the promulgation of Decrees which had severely and unacceptably curtailed trade union activities in Nigeria. The continued abuse of basic workers' rights, including the detention without charges of trade union leaders, was totally unacceptable. In view of the serious concern of the Committee in this case, as noted in two special paragraphs, she expressed extreme disappointment that the ILO mission had still not been able to visit the country. Such a mission was crucial to enable all sides to set out their concerns and discuss how best to improve the situation. It was imperative that an ILO mission take place as a matter of urgency. She also urged the Nigerian authorities to take immediate steps to release all detained trade union leaders and noted that resolution 1997/53 of the United Nations Human Rights Commission had already called upon the Nigerian Government to ensure the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms by releasing trade union leaders. By such action, the Nigerian Government would be able to demonstrate whether it had any serious commitment to the principles of the ILO.

The Workers' member of Pakistan emphasized the gravity of the case, in which the Government continued to violate fundamental principles that had been recognized from the very beginning of the ILO as one of the cornerstones of peace and social justice and as being essential to sustained progress. The Government representative had claimed that the trade union legislation had been changed on the recommendation of a tripartite board and that the NLC and other organizations had been dissolved for reasons of public order. He could only implore the Government representative to show respect for principles that went to the heart of the ILO. No member State could overturn those principles on the basis of mere consultation or interpret them in its own manner. He explained that the restriction placed on the employment of full-time officials by trade unions considerably weakened the position of workers' representatives by making them dependent on an employer for their livelihood. In view of the very serious violations of most of the basic provisions of the Convention and the deterioration in the situation of trade unions in the country, the Government should take immediate action to lift the restrictions in question, release detained trade unionists and cease interfering in trade union affairs. He supported the call to place the Committee's conclusions on this case in a special paragraph.

The Government member of the United States recalled that Nigeria was participating at the Conference this year without having taken any steps whatsoever to improve its application of the Convention or to provide Nigerian workers with basic, universally recognized human and trade union rights. If anything, the situation had deteriorated. Nigeria's lack of regard for its international commitments, and indeed its own citizens, was deplorable. The entire international community was frustrated with Nigeria's failure to respect human rights, as illustrated by the recent appointment by the United Nations Human Rights Commission of a human rights rapporteur for Nigeria. Trade unionists all over the world were justifiably pessimistic about the Government's intentions in view of its complete stranglehold over free and independent trade unionism in the country. The Committee had no choice but to criticize Nigeria's failure to apply the Convention in the strongest possible terms.

The Workers' member of South Africa recalled the statement by the Workers' member of his country in the Committee's discussion of this case in 1995. He had referred to the apartheid period in South Africa and expressed his empathy and solidarity with Nigerian workers in their struggle against the basic denial of human and trade union rights. However, the situation had worsened since 1995. The Nigerian military government was guilty of gross interference in trade union affairs and had run the NLC for three years. It had forcibly merged the NLC's 41 affiliates into 29 unions. Frank Kokori and Milton Dabibi had been detained without charges or trials and he called upon the military government to inform the Committee of the evidence against them. He added that the Government had adopted legal provisions with the aim of bringing independent trade unionism to its knees in Nigeria. Decree No. 29 of 1996 banned the NLC and its affiliated unions from becoming members of international trade union organizations. He recalled that the Government had introduced a similar measure in 1989, but had withdrawn it in 1991 following widespread condemnation by the ILO and the international trade union movement. The increasing denial of trade union rights, civil liberties and democracy in Nigeria meant that the case should once again be included in a special paragraph.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom noted that the Committee of Experts had expressed its concern at the situation in Nigeria in very strong terms. Time and again, the Committee on Freedom of Association had clearly stated that freedom of association could only be exercised under conditions in which fundamental human rights, including in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, were fully respected and guaranteed. This concern had been reflected by other United Nations bodies, including the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, as well as by the Organization of African Unity, the European Union and respected non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International. Nevertheless, human rights violations continued in the country, along with the continuing repression of trade unions and trade unionists. She drew attention to the impact of Decree No. 29 of 1996, adopted in October 1996, but only made public at the beginning of 1997. This Decree empowered the Minister of Labour to cancel the registration of any of the 29 NLC affiliates if he considered their activities to be at variance with the national interest. Although trade unions could appeal against such a decision to the Minister, the decision could not be challenged in the courts, in clear violation of Article 4 of the Convention, so that even though the Experts had noted a deterioration in the situation in their Report, there had been introduced yet further violations since the Experts had reported. With regard to the detention of trade union leaders, she emphasized that the situation in Nigeria was intolerable. The judicial murders of Ken Sarawiwa and the Ogoni tribesmen remained indelibly imprinted on everyone's minds. The thoughts of all trade unionists throughout the world went out to their colleagues who were isolated in Nigerian jails without charges or trial, denied health care and the most basic rights, including contact with their families and lawyers. She therefore called upon the Government to answer questions that had already been raised in 1996. What were the charges on which these trade unionists were being held? What was the evidence? Why were they being denied access to lawyers? Why had they been refused medical attention? Why had they not been granted family visits? Finally, she requested the Government to state whether it would now set a date for the ILO direct contacts mission called for since 1995 to visit the country and the detained trade unionists.

The Government member of Canada expressed her country's deepest concern with regard to the persistent and unacceptable deterioration of trade union rights in Nigeria, as described in the report of the Committee of Experts. Since the Conference Committee addressed these issues in June 1996, additional Decrees, restricting further the right of trade unions to organize and elect representatives in full freedom, had been adopted by the Nigerian Government in total disregard for and disrespect of the recommendations of this Committee and the fundamental rights of Nigerian workers. Moreover, in spite of concerns expressed, in 1996, by the Conference Committee with regard to the illegal detention of trade union leaders, and the recent resolution of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1997/53) urging the Nigerian Government to release all detained trade union leaders, no progress had been made in this regard. She urged the Nigerian Government to make arrangements, at the earliest possible date, for an ILO mission to examine the issues under discussion in this Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association, and to take immediate steps to release all detained trade union leaders, and to bring its law and practice into conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 87.

The Workers' member of Swaziland reaffirmed the fact that the Government was fully aware of what was expected of it as a party to the Convention for 38 years and as a member of the Governing Body. Nevertheless, it deliberately continued to flout the dictates of human dignity and social justice. As a member of the Governing Body, Nigeria was supposed to lead by example, but was doing just the opposite in denying the fundamental trade union rights and perpetrating malicious arrests, detentions and disappearances. It set up arbitrary courts with the power to impose death penalties, while denying access to lawyers. Its interference with trade union rights extended to their dissolution and the abolition of the check-off system. It extended the list of essential services at will to include such professions as teachers and bank workers. Champions of oppression could not at the same time be champions of social justice. The current dictatorship and intolerant climate was not a conducive environment for human and trade union rights. Moreover, by claiming that Nigerian workers were in agreement with the measures taken by the Government, the Worker representative from Nigeria had made himself an accomplice to the arbitrary measures committed in that country. True trade unionists were not impressed by government-sponsored workers' representatives who supported injustice.

The Government representative assured the Committee that his Government would take account of all views that had been expressed in good faith. However, he noted that the comments made concerning a lack of cooperation were mainly related to the proposed ILO mission. The Government favoured the proposal, but a mutually convenient date needed to be agreed upon and consultations should continue on this subject. He denied that Decree No. 29 of 1996 restricted effective trade union organization in Nigeria. Moreover, although it established the prescribed procedures to be adopted for affiliation to international organizations, it did not prohibit such affiliation. Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994 were transitional measures which would be repealed when the respective trade union elections had been held. He regretted that the Committee was not fully informed of the situation in his country. Some of the information on which comments had been made was already out of date. But the Committee had been able to note that Nigerian workers were happy with the reforms and gave them their unequivocal support. He suspected that a visit by an ILO mission to Nigeria would confirm his comments. As on other occasions, if errors were to be found in the application of the Convention, the necessary measures would be taken in good faith. However, there could be no doubt at the present time concerning the adequacy of the freedom of association enjoyed by Nigerian workers with their registered trade unions grouped into a single central organization. It was regrettable that three industrial unions were still run by appointed administrators, but urgent steps were being taken to redress the situation. Of the 62 registered associations in the country, 59 were run by their freely elected leaders. He emphasized that the objective of the Government in its reforms was to place Nigerian worker's organizations on an enhanced footing in order to contribute to the best possible interaction between workers and society at large. He had taken note of all the comments that had been made and requested the Committee to exercise patience and understanding. His Government was committed to the full achievement of the ideals of the ILO. The trade union measures that had been introduced were in the overall interests of the workers and would lead to an improvement in the overall security situation. He emphasized that workers had a major role to play in the development of the country and that the current administration was committed to ensuring that no constraints were placed on labour to prevent it from playing an effective part as one of the pillars of production.

The Workers' members pointed out that, despite his lengthy intervention, the Government representative had not replied to the questions raised by the members of the Committee. Very clear answers needed to be provided to these questions. In view of the gravity of the case and the long history and overwhelming evidence of gross violations of the Convention, they called for it to be placed in a special paragraph for continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Employers' members reiterated the position they had expressed earlier.

The Government representative expressed apprehension at the suggestion that no progress had been made with regard to the application of the Convention. He had already explained the overriding need for basic reforms in the Nigerian labour movement. He noted in this respect that the same applied to many other countries. He reaffirmed his belief that the ILO was the organization best suited to assist Nigeria in achieving the basic aims of these reforms, which were to the advantage of all concerned.

The Committee noted the statement of the Government representative and of the debate which followed. The Committee set out its great concern that, although this case had been the subject of a special paragraph in 1995 and 1996, no concrete progress had been made to date in relation to the very grave trade union situation in the country. Both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had profoundly deplored the gravity of the situation of trade unions in Nigeria. The Committee once again urged the Government to urgently derogate not only Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994, concerning dissolution of the executive councils of trade unions persecuted by the public authorities, but also to nullify the Decree of January 1996, which fixed the number of trade unions for each category of profession, and which reinforced the current trade union monopoly. The Committee lamented that notwithstanding the guarantees given by the Government, it had not replied to the request of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Governing Body to accept an ILO mission to the country with the object of examining the questions raised in this case. The Committee called on the Government to accept without delay this mission in order to examine the trade union situation in Nigeria, including the situation of the imprisoned union leaders. The Committee urged the Government to ensure full respect of civil liberties, essential for the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to count on important progress in the very near future and asked the Government to send a detailed report to examine anew next year the situation. The Committee decided to include this case in a special paragraph of its report and to mention it as a case of continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Government representative expressed apprehension at the suggestion that no progress had been made with regard to the application of the Convention. He had already explained the overriding need for basic reforms in the Nigerian labour movement. He noted in this respect that the same applied to many other countries. He reaffirmed his belief that the ILO was the organization best suited to assist Nigeria in achieving the basic aims of these reforms, which were to the advantage of all concerned.