Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1995, Publication : 82ème session CIT (1995)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Nigéria (Ratification: 1960)

A Government representative from Nigeria stated that the Subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council on the Review of Labour Laws had concluded its review of the principal labour legislation and had submitted its report. This tripartite council would examine the report and make subsequent recommendations to the federal Government for the promulgation of new labour legislation. The speaker referred to a new national labour policy and affirmed that the federal Government would not deliberately abandon its obligations in the observance of the Convention. He continued noting that the restructuring legislation approved in Gazette No. 24, of 31 August 1993, was cancelled in Government Notice No. 2 (Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 2, Volume 32, of 8 February 1995).

He further recalled the circumstances regarding the dissolution of the executive councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) and the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) under Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994 following a protracted political strike, during which the unions never raised any labour disputes and all attempts to seek dialogue were rebuffed by them. These decrees, he noted, were promulgated because of the threats to national security. While the executive council of the union was dissolved, the union was not disbanded although it acted in contravention of the unions' constitution and the laws of Nigeria. He insisted on the transitionary character of Decrees Nos. 9 and 10, intended to maintain law and order during national emergency. These laws were based on the principle of national expediency and the doctrine of necessity.

He stated that the trade unions had constituted committees to work out the modalities of restoring the unions' National Executive Councils within the shortest possible time. He further noted that elections had already been held at unit and branch levels of NUPENG and PENGASSAN and that the 31 state councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress were never dissolved and were being run by the elected leaders. Once the six committees, namely the Constitution Review Committee, the Congress Policy and Programme Committee, the Congress Secretariat Restructuring Committee, the Congress 1995 Budget Committee, the Congress Consultative Committee and the Delegates' Conference Committee, set up by the trade unions, have completed their assignment on election arrangements, and on conclusion of the elections at the national delegates' conference of the affected unions, he confirmed that Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 will be repealed.

The Government representative further assured the Committee that all steps would be taken to protect freedom of association in the proposed amendments to Nigerian labour law. He felt that the degree of compliance with Convention No. 87 could be assessed from the fact that 82 of 85 registered trade unions in Nigeria were operating freely under the principles of freedom of association.

The Employers' members observed that Nigeria had ratified Convention No. 87 35 years ago and the Committee of Experts had repeatedly expressed its concern at the considerable discrepancies between the Convention's requirements and the deteriorating legal and de facto situation. In essence, the Government had imposed a uniform trade union system through repeated cases of intervention and interference in the trade union structure.

They likened the Government's statement to what had happened in 1991. Once again, the Government representative stated that everything would be dealt with by the Subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council. They recalled the justification for the restructuring of trade unions in Nigeria mentioned in the preamble of Gazette No. 24 of 31 August 1993, as observed by the Experts. They then referred to the imposition of the union monopoly as well as the dissolution and the disbanding of several unions, all of which was incompatible with Convention No. 87. They felt the Government representative's statements were too general and vague on concrete solutions.

They concluded by referring to frightening developments in Nigeria which also concerned freedom of association and which necessitated the intervention of the Director-General of the ILO. They noted that Nigeria had totally failed for several decades to meet its obligations; in essence, there was no freedom of association in the country, there has hardly been any change and in some instances only a deterioration of the situation.

They called for conclusions expressing sincere regrets and strongly urging the Government to meet its obligations under Convention No. 87.

The Workers' members referred to the matters observed by the Experts and noted that the Committee of Experts had always had serious problems with the Government of Nigeria in respect of this Convention. However, all these violations paled in comparison to the events of last year, and this was probably among the worst cases the Committee has had to deal with on Convention No. 87. They further noted that Nigeria was now threatened with suspension from the Commonwealth because of its human rights record, and its failure to observe principles of democracy. They referred to the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on Case No. 1793 and highlighted some of the worst abuses revealed in it: senior trade unionists jailed, raids and confiscation at the headquarters of the Nigerian Labour Congress, union functions taken over by the Government, etc. They stressed that no union congresses had been authorized despite the Government's promise that this would occur before the end of March 1995. Concerning branch elections, terror prevailed.

They finally expressed their deep concern and considered a special paragraph for this case. Consequently, the conclusions should reflect its seriousness.

The Workers' member of South Africa recalling the apartheid period, expressed his empathy and solidarity with Nigerian workers in their struggle against the denial of basic human and trade union rights. He called for a special paragraph condemning a regime which was anathema to democracy, union rights and social progress.

The Workers' member of the United States observed that the situation of Nigerian trade unions had literally gone from bad to worse, as noted in the recent freedom of association case against Nigeria. He further noted that in July 1994, Frank Kokori, General Secretary of NUPENG, was arrested and remained in custody without having been publicly charged or tried. The speaker noted that five labour leaders were known to remain in government custody while other senior labour officials are in hiding. On 2 August 1994, the Nigerian Labour Congress filed suit challenging the Government's dissolution of the Federation's Executive Council. On 6 September 1994, the press announced that this action was effectively blocked by Decree No. 12 of 18 August 1994 stating that "no action of the federal military government may be questioned henceforth in a court of law". He concluded that the military rulers of Nigeria had removed their country from the civilized world and, to ensure its isolation, the regime had forbidden free and independent union activity.

The Workers' member of Zimbabwe joined in the remarks made by previous Workers' speakers and referred to the four key points raised by the Committee of Experts as among the most serious violations of human dignity. He recalled the address of the Nigerian Minister of Labour before the Governing Body in November 1993 promising a return to normal by the following March; it was now June 1995 and nothing had been done and these were just more empty promises.

The Government representative of South Africa observed that the situation in Nigeria recalled to him the authoritarianism of South Africa under apartheid. The language used by the Nigerian Government was even reminiscent of those times when the Government categorized strikes as political and invoked the terms of "national emergency and maintenance of law and order" to justify the imposition of an undemocratic order in his country. While the ends were different in the two countries, the means used were the same. Although one wanted to support measures that ensured orderly collective bargaining, those measures must never interfere with the right of workers to join and form their own trade unions. That right ensured that the unions themselves were democratic. It was impossible to accept the explanations of the Government: the case called for a strong reaction.

The Workers' member of Ghana (coming as a Workers' delegate from the West African subregion who had had the opportunity to lead a Workers' delegation to Nigeria) felt himself compelled to make a brief intervention on the issue of the serious violation of trade union and human rights in Nigeria. The naked attack on trade union rights in Nigeria had serious implications for trade unions in the subregion, if not in the whole of Africa. It constituted a very dangerous precedent which should not be allowed to stand. The Committee of Experts in its report confirmed that by decrees the Government of Nigeria removed from office the national executive council members of NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN and put in their place government-appointed administrators, which constituted a clear violation of the rights of these trade union organizations.

In response to universal condemnation of these violations, the representative of the Government of Nigeria sought and obtained permission to address the Governing Body session in November 1994, where he committed the Nigerian Government to take necessary measures to purge itself of these trade union violations before the March 1995 Governing Body meeting. March came, and the situation remained unchanged and, up to date, the Government of Nigeria has not considered it necessary to provide any information to the Governing Body on why it was not possible for it to fulfil that promise.

The Government's attempts to find excuses for these violations should be dismissed by the Committee as frivolous and totally unacceptable. Nigeria has a competent judicial system in place. Therefore, if labour leaders were going against the laws, they should be dealt with according to the laws of their land. It was totally unacceptable to detain labour leaders in the name of state security without any charges being proffered against them.

The speaker therefore invited the Committee to condemn the Federal Republic of Nigeria's violation of Convention No. 87 in the strongest possible terms and to call on it to take its hands off the unions in the energy and the oil sectors. He suggested that the Committee's conclusions should be put in a special paragraph to serve as a deterrent to governments in Africa which may be seeking to follow this shameful example.

The Government member of the United States recalled that in 1991 this Committee expressed concern at the fact that the Government of Nigeria did not seem to have made any progress towards bringing its law and practice into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87. In the intervening four years, notwithstanding the presentation made by the Government representative, it appeared that the situation had still not improved but, on the contrary, had worsened. Despite the Government's obligations under Convention No. 87, which it had undertaken in 1960, the Government of Nigeria had embarked upon a campaign of interference and harassment, with the clear purpose of making it impossible for free and independent trade unions to operate in Nigeria. The Government's actions had taken the form of public decrees, arrests, intimidation, and the obstruction of due process under Nigerian law. These drastic measures had been described fully in the Committee of Experts' observations and in the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1793, and most especially, in the very eloquent and moving presentations that had been made by previous speakers. Suffice it to say that recent events in Nigeria were extremely disturbing because they demonstrated that rather than moving to bring its law and practice into conformity with Convention No. 87, the Government was instead intent upon crushing an independent labour movement in Nigeria.

If the pledges made by the Government representative of Nigeria were not just empty words, this Committee must insist that these words needed to be matched by concrete actions to restore full democracy and freedom of operation to the Nigerian trade union movement without delay.

The Workers' member of Côte d'Ivoire, supporting the declarations of other speakers, indicated that the situation in Nigeria was not exceptional and that other developing countries were faced with the same problems. There were questions to be asked in this connection. Why did States ratify this fundamental Convention, while knowing of the wide scope of its provisions? When would there be in Africa a really democratic and social policy? Democracy meant not only free elections, it should also be reflected inside the societies and enterprises. It was for this reason that the speaker was preoccupied by the frequent intervention of the military. He concluded by pointing out the importance of the negative example provided by Nigeria for other African countries.

The Workers' member of Greece supported the interventions of other speakers from the Workers' side and particularly those of the African Workers which demonstrated the gravity of the situation in Nigeria. It was a classic case of the flagrant and continuous violation of the trade union rights and of human rights. The Committee of Experts commented in a polite manner on the provisions of the national legislation which were not in conformity with the Convention, and invited the Government to remedy the situation. The Government responded by letters and speeches of various lengths. But the situation was aggravated and there was no indication to hope for a better future. It was pitiful to note that the leaders of this country did not understand that no country in the world could progress by stepping down on their workers who constituted the majority of its people. The speaker insisted that this case should be put into a special paragraph.

The Workers' member of Senegal stated that the situation in the Nigerian trade unions was painfully felt by their homologues over the whole African continent, and that violations of trade unions' freedoms had never attained such a level. Noting the complexity of the trade union system in Nigeria, he wondered what were the reasons for the government interference in their affairs, as obviously no government should undertake to restructure trade unions. In Senegal, this was an exclusive right of the legally constituted trade union central bodies. The system established in Nigeria favoured the interference of the public authorities in trade union affairs, on whatever pretext. Nigeria was characterized by the absence of a civil government that had been brought to power by universal elections. A whole generation in Nigeria lived without having such a government. The trade union movement of all colours demanded the re-establishment of the freedom of association in Nigeria, of the civil regime and the organization of free democratic elections. Associating himself with other speakers who condemned the present situation in Nigeria, the speaker concluded by supporting the proposal to put this case into a special paragraph.

The Government member of Senegal was preoccupied by the repeated violations of trade union rights in Nigeria. Taking into account the demographic, political and economic weight of the country, Nigeria could influence negatively the internal development of certain States as well as the subregional geo-political situation. He supported the previous speakers in condemning the tyrannical methods to regulate problems of trade unions, and in demanding of the Nigerian authorities to urgently conform to the provisions of the Convention.

The Workers' member of Cameroon, associating himself with the condemnations expressed by the previous speakers, concentrated on two points. The first concerned the negative influence which Nigeria could exercise on its neighbours by systematically violating trade union rights, and the second point consisted in the need to ensure the possibility for the trade unions to protect the interests of the workers in a free and independent manner.

The Government representative of Nigeria said that ILO delegations were always tripartite and in all situations workers who were directly affected were also given a chance to take the floor. It was unfortunate that the Nigerian Workers' delegation, which arrived late, had been denied the opportunity of telling the world what happened in their own country. It therefore meant that all other speakers were speculating because they did not know the true position in Nigeria and many did not seem to understand clearly what they were talking about, using some inappropriate comparisons. Moreover, a human rights commission which sat here in Geneva had already looked into human rights and other abuses with which Nigerians were charged, and the Government was therefore surprised that another United Nations agency could come in and put Nigeria a second time on trial. With respect to what the Committee of Experts have observed about Nigeria, definitely in Nigeria things were not deteriorating. On the contrary, there was every action towards complete democratization of the trade unions in Nigeria. There were about 85 accepted trade unions in Nigeria which were still operating freely, apart from the three which engaged in criminal acts and in the wanton destruction of property in a country which was already saddled with heavy debts.

The international community should look more closely at Nigeria's peculiar situation, at its teeming population, at the complexity of the country, and at its own march forward. The unions were still there, they were working out a programme towards democratization of their own organizations, and that dispelled that impression that Nigeria has deteriorated to a stage that every worker was being haunted.

On the issue of political strike, the speaker explained that Frank Kokori was arrested because he used his own position as the General Secretary of NUPENG to promote his own personal political ambition as the Financial Secretary of the Social Democratic Party, and, in doing so, he had used the workers to involve massive destruction of property, lives, petroleum pipelines and so many other things. So, most of those who were being detained because of their trade union activities were not being detained because they have participated in political activities, but because of criminal acts. That was the position about the political strikes and detention of some of the union leaders.

Concerning the issue of the Nigerian Labour Congress, it was paradoxical that the ILO, being against the establishment of a single central labour organization, was now complaining that it has been dissolved. When it said that you cannot have one central labour organization by law, it needed to look at the genesis of the establishment of the central labour organization. And in Nigeria, the unions decided on their own, not the Government, that they would like to come together. Furthermore, there were records to show that the unions themselves wrote and asked the Government to assist them in their restructuring. Now, when this had been done, the Committee of Experts came up with their findings that it was improper for the Government to establish trade union unity by law. The country obeyed and dismantled the restructuring as demanded by the Committee of Experts. There was an element of compliance and one would not say that the Government had not complied.

It was also erroneous to believe that all unions in Nigeria were affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress. Out of the 85 registered unions in Nigeria, only 41 were affiliated to the NLC. So, the impression that was given here that Nigeria had one central organization and everybody was forced to be there was not true.

It has also been established here that the registrar of trade unions had the power to supervise the accounts of trade unions. This was not true. The registrar of trade unions had no business in supervising or administering the accounts of unions. The trade unions, under their own constitution, had provision whereby the accounts must be audited every year and members must be informed how the contributions were being expended. The federal Government made a check of this law, so as to ensure that the unions were properly funded. If the Government should make a law to ensure that workers' money was deducted at source and paid to trade unions, such a Government should also ensure that the money was properly utilized. In this concept it had to look at the unions and their objectives and ensure that there was no question of financial impropriety. The annual audited accounts of the trade unions were meant for the Committee of Management of their respective unions to deliberate and approve of the ways and manner that workers' contributions had been expended. Copies of the audited accounts were then sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions for information and scrutiny to ensure that the management and expenditure of trade unions' funds were in conformity with the objects of the unions as prescribed in their constitutions. This arrangement was meant to serve as checks and balances for the purposes of probity and accountability by the leadership of trade unions in Nigeria. The unions elected their own chartered accountants to audit the accounts on their own without any interference by the registrar of trade unions. So, this other issue about interference with the accounts of unions was also incorrect.

As to what concerned the issue of democratization, the Government was not interested in the running of trade unions, in fact, it was an additional headache. The federal Government appointed sole administrators because of the erring attitude of the leaders of these unions and it was only a transitory arrangement, it was not a permanent arrangement. The Nigerian Labour Congress had virtually been run by the workers themselves. About nine committees had been set up and all these committees were headed by the workers themselves. When the Committee set up by the 41-member trade unions of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), and other Committees set up by the elected branches' executive councils of NUPENG and PENGASSAN had been established, the national executive councils of these unions would be elected in the Special Delegates' Conferences organized by the affected Unions.

The whole discussion which implied that the federal Government was so much against trade unionism and was out to destroy it, was not true. On the contrary, the federal Government has done a lot in an effort to promote good and strong federal unions in the country. The Nigerian Labour Congress at the time that it was established in 1977, received from the Government a fund of 1 million naira; between 1992 and 1994, the federal Government gave the Nigerian Labour Congress the sum of 100 million naira to enable it to invest in its transport company. That was to encourage the mobility of workers to go to work and back and so that they could pay cheaply rather than being exploited by other transporters. When the Nigerian Labour Congress decided that it would like to move to the new federal capital of Nigeria, the federal Government gave it the sum of 50 million naira to enable it to build their secretariat. Again, to encourage investment so that unions would not run out of funds or so that they may be able to recruit a high calibre of people to work for them, the Government gave them 80 million naira for them to invest in the Urban Development Bank. Apart from the financial aid, the Government had established the National Institute for Labour Studies for the training of trade union leaders in the country. The Government had promulgated a decree on the checking of dues which were deductible at source and paid to the unions to ensure that they have proper funds. Apart from this, the law on recognition of trade unions by employers has been made mandatory by the Government and sanctions were placed against any employer who failed to recognize a duly registered trade union. A law has been made protecting trade unionists in their jobs to avoid unfair dismissals. All these issues, among many other things which the federal Government has done, showed that it was not interested in the destruction of unions. He then referred to the additional information which had been given in the paper prepared and submitted by the Government in response to the ILO's Committee of Experts, where it assured this Committee that all trade unions would soon conclude their elections and that new national officers would be elected into the national executive councils so as to enable the unions to run their own affairs.

Another Government representative added, in the continuation of the Nigerian position, that if the Nigerian Government was being accused of gagging Nigerian workers, this Committee should have allowed the Nigerian workers who were here to speak for themselves. But besides that point, it should also see the complexity of Nigeria, which was a country of 100 million people and 250 ethnic groups. Those who understood Nigeria, knew that even under the so-called military Government, Nigeria was even more democratic and more open than so-called democratic governments.

It was important that the efforts of Nigeria to move towards constitutionalism and democracy should be encouraged, not discouraged. Punitive statements, punitive pronouncements would not help. If through these so-called punitive actions Nigeria were moved to such a complex situation as to produce refugees, the refugees would not only overwhelm West Africa, they would overwhelm the whole of the continent and Europe would be a recipient of the refugees.

Nigeria did not want to be a case of those countries that had broken up, and that was why it was asking to be allowed to solve its problems and, indeed, intended to solve the problems very quickly. The constitutional conference in Nigeria would be finalizing its work by the end of this month and there would be a move towards constitutionalism and democracy. Therefore, the Government representative appealed for an understanding of the Nigerian position and of its commitment to a democratic State and democratic and free trade unions.

The Workers' members recalled the procedure according to which every speaker had to register in order to have the right to take the floor in this Committee. There was no representative of the workers of Nigeria in this Committee as, unfortunately, no such person had registered. There was no censorship involved, and it was purely a matter of procedure which permitted the Committee to function properly.

The Workers' members then thanked all the speakers taking the floor and particularly their African colleagues. They pointed out that the members of this Committee seemed to unanimously condemn the situation which prevailed at present in Nigeria and considered that the information provided by the Government representatives was a smoke-screen. They concealed more than they revealed. The Workers' members could have no sympathy for a government who was not doing anything to stop the repression of the workers. They insisted also that an individual who was arrested and detained because of his trade union activities was entitled to be judged impartially, and the judiciary in a country could not make impartial judgements when the government was consistently changing the laws to suit its own convenience. They have also pointed out that Nigeria could provide a negative example for the other African States, and that it was important that the Committee should dissuade other countries from following this deplorable example. For these reasons they commended that this case deserved a special paragraph.

The Employers' members stressed the fact that only those registered in the Committee were entitled to the right to speak according to the established procedure. They deplored the absence of concrete indications on the actions which might be taken to improve the situation and have noted the ambiguity of the declarations made by the Government representative as regards the dismissal of trade union leaders and the criminal acts that they allegedly committed. The Employers' members concluded by insisting that this case should be treated under a special paragraph through the unanimously adopted conclusions highlighting the dimension of the discrepancies accumulated up to date.

The Committee took note of the statement of the Government representatives of Nigeria. The Committee noted that though Nigeria ratified Convention No. 87, 35 years back, there was considerable discrepancy between de jure and de facto conformity with the Convention. The Committee of Experts had also pointed out fundamental deviations in the national laws from the Convention. Legal stipulation for a single trade union system and governmental interference in the structuring of trade unions were matters of serious concern. The clarification of the Government representative that the Subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council was reviewing labour laws, was of a routine nature. The Committee further recalled the conclusions of the Freedom of Association Committee regarding replacement of officers of certain unions of workers by government administrators and considered this governmental act to be a flagrant violation of Convention No. 87.

The Committee therefore urgently demanded the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with Convention No. 87, to repeal the decrees dissolving unions issued in 1994 and to restore to the organizations concerned the right to elect their representatives in full freedom without any interference from the public authorities. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Committee of Experts would be able to note significant progress on these matters in the very near future. The Committee also decided that this conclusion be placed in a special paragraph of the General Report.