By

Femi Aborisade

Being a paper delivered at the 20^th Post humous Anniversary of Pa Michael Imoudu held on 2/12/25.

An examination of the evolution of labour rights in Nigeria is a call to interrogate the history of the plight of the working class under different phases of capitalist work relations – the colonial, post-colonial, military and civil rule regimes.

One common factor in all the different phases is exploitation of the working class.

While capitalism exploits all workers, regardless of racial differences, European capitalism combined racial justification and subjected the African workers to more crude exploitation than their European counterparts. The racial theory that the black persons were inferior led to the conclusion that they deserved lower wages. Top posts were restricted to only European workers. Forced labour of the African worker was used in construction works. Workers were subjected to brutal punishment, including physical beating. Those were the conditions that produced the iconic Labour Leader No. 1, Michael Imoudu.

Just as the Dangote Refinery currently denies and/or resists unionization of workers, the colonial era also denied the right of unionism.

It should be noted that the early unions existed in defiance of the law – the Southern Nigeria Civil Service Union (August 1912) which later became the Nigeria Civil Service Union in 1914 following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates; the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) – 1931; the Railway Workers Union (NUR) – 1931/32; Marine Workers Union – 1936/37, etc, These unions were initially operating illegally and/or semi-illegally. They were largely denied recognition for bargaining purposes.

However, the colonialists realized that the more the unions were suppressed, the more popular they became. Based on continued resistance of the workers and similar experiences in other colonies, the British Colonialists were compelled to pass the Trade Union Ordinance of 1938, which came into effect on 1^st April 1939.

ESSENCE OF TRADE UNION ORDINANCE & REASON FOR UNION REGISTRATION

For the Colonialists, the essence of enacting the Trade Union Ordinance was with the goal of controlling, curbing or curtailing workers’ militancy by administrative bureaucratic procedures. For the trade unions, their interest in registering unions was to seize the opportunity of legalization to carry out their trade union activities more freely and openly.  It should be recalled that even without a union, the workers of Public Works Department struck against the labour policies of Governor Henry Mccaum in Lagos in August 1897.

Imoudu-led Railway Workers Union was the first to register. Many other unions also got registered. Indeed, the success of the registered unions in struggle, particularly in securing the payment of Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) in 1942 encouraged more unions to register.

By 1943, 85 unions had registered with a total membership of 27,154.

THE BIRTH OF THE 1^ST CONGRESS, THE TUC

With the development of many registered unions, it occurred to the workers that they would be more powerful, not only against individual employers but also against the whole government, if they organized under one central labour organization. Thus, in August 1943, the first Congress, the Trade Union Congress, TUC, was formed.

Since 1938, the trade union structure in Nigeria has passed through different phases by statutory impositions.

The 1938 Trade Union Ordinance placed no limit to the number of unions, no limit to the number of central labour organisations (CLOs) and provided that at least five (5) workers could form a union.

The Trade Union Decree No. 31 of 1973 raised the minimum number of workers that could form a union to at least 50. By 1978, about 1007 unions (house/craft unions) existed.

Between 1976 and 1978, by the instrument of Trade Union Decree No. 22 of 1978, the 1007 unions were restructured into 70 unions, comprising 42 industrial unions, 18 Senior Staff Associations, 9 employers’ associations, and one central labour organization, the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, to which the 42 unions were statutorily affiliated.

In 1981, the NLC, at its Kano Delegates Conference,  amended its constitution to allow senior staff associations (SSAs) to affiliate to Congress. This resulted in the Shop and Distributive Senior Staff Association and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) affiliating to the NLC and raised the number of NLC affiliates to 44.

The Trade Union Decree No. 17 of 1986 prohibited SSAs from affiliating to Congress. It recognized 42 NLC affiliates, 25 SSAs and 10 employers associations.

In 1989, the Trade Union Decree No. 25 of 1989 proscribed the Bernard Odulana-led Customs and Excise Workers Union, thus reducing the number of NLC affiliates to 41.

In 1996, the Trade Union Decree No. 4 and the Trade Union Decree No. 26 of the same year had the combined effect of statutorily recognizing 29 industrial unions made up of the merger of 19 unions into seven and 22 unmerged unions and one central labour organization, the NLC. The Decrees made no express provision for SSAs and employers associations in the list of unions.

In 1999, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 statutorily recognized 29 industrial unions, one central labour organization, the NLC, to which the 29 unions were affiliated, 24 SSAs and 19 employers’ associations.

The extant Trade Unions Act as amended by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act of 2005, among other provisions, retains recognition for the 29 industrial unions but removes the direct express mentioning of the NLC as the sole central labour organization. It however provides for registration of ‘Federation of Trade Unions’, thus making possible the recognition of multiple central labour organizations, which play the roles of CLOs such as “to represent the general interest of its members on any national advisory body set up by the Government of the Federation” [S. 33(1)(b), TUA].

In addition to the recognition of 29 industrial unions in Parts A & B of its Third Schedule, the extant TUA also expressly recognizes, in Part C of its Third Schedule, 44 Senior Staff Associations and Employers Associations, apart from any other trade unions and senior staff associations that may be registered in the future.    

FROM TRADE UNION MONOPOLY TO TRADE UNION PLURALITY

From a regime of statutory imposition of one industrial union per industry, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), in 2023, has made a fundamental paradigm shift from recognition and giving effect to trade union monopoly to trade union plurality within the context of the principle of voluntarism which has made possible the factual existence of Congress of University Academics (CONUA), Law Officers Association of Nigeria (LOAN) and National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) through the following cases:

1. Yusuf Abdullahi Abdulkadir, Esq. & 16 Ors v. Minister of Labour & Employment & ors [Suit No. NO. NICN/AK/04/2022, Judgment of which was delivered on 16/5/2023];
2. ASUU v. Minister of Labour and Employment & 3 ors [Suit No. NICN/ABJ/336/2022, Judgment of which was delivered on 25/7/2023], and
3. Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational & Associated Institutions (NASU) v. Comrade Niyi Akinnibi (Sued as the National President of National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) [SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/250/2022, Judgment of which was delivered on 30 MAY 2023,

all delivered by HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD, OFR PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA].

In Yusuf Abdullahi Abdulkadir, Esq. & 16 Ors v. Minister of Labour & Employment & ors [Suit No. NO. NICN/AK/04/2022, Judgment of which was delivered on 16/5/2023 by HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD, OFR PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA] the Court directed the Registrar of trade unions to mandatorily “forthwith register the Law Officers Association of Nigeria (LOAN) as a trade union”, relying on ILO jurisprudence as to Convention No. 87, Section 254C(1)(f) and (h), and (2) of the 1999 Constitution and section 7(6) of the NICA, 2006, which empowers the Court to, as the Court puts it,

“when adjudicating, apply international best practices in labour and the Treaties, Conventions, Recommendations and protocols on labour ratified by Nigeria, inures ‘notwithstanding  … anything contained in this Constitution’. And section 45 of the 1999 Constitution is one of such “anything contained in this Constitution” that must be read subject to section 254C(1)(f0 and (h) of the 1999 Constitution.”

In ASUU v. Minister of Labour and Employment & 3 ors [Suit No. NICN/ABJ/336/2022, Judgment of which was delivered on 25/7/2023 by the President of the NICN, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip] the Court reiterated the principle of plurality of trade unions and held that Congress of University Academics (CONUA), the 3rd Defendant in the Suit, can be registered as a trade union, “to co-exist alongside and carry out the same functions with the Claimant in the Universities in Nigeria’. The Court went further in paragraph 59 of the Judgment that “the generally accepted principle by ILO is trade union plurality. But if the workers or employers so wish, the decision being theirs, they can settle for trade union monopoly”.

Similarly, in Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational & Associated Institutions (NASU) v. Comrade Niyi Akinnibi (Sued as the National President of National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) [SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/250/2022, Judgment of which was delivered on 30 MAY 2023 by HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD, OFR, PRESIDENT, NICN] the Court held that NANTS can be registered as a trade union “given ILO Convention NO. 87, which is now applicable in virtue of section 254C(1)(f) and (h), and (2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 7(6) of the NIC Act 2006”.

The point however needs to be made that at least, since 1973, the report of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (1973) has been critical of Nigeria in terms of statutory imposition of trade unions and central labour organization within the context of Articles 2, 5, & 6 of Convention No. 87.

However, the principle of trade union plurality in accordance with ILO Convention No. 87 has not always been implemented.

On the question, whether TRADE UNIONS THAT ARE MEMBERS OF A REGISTERED FEDERATION can OPT OUT TO FORM ANOTHER FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS, the NICN had answered emphatically in the negative., relying on the provision of the Trade Unions Act which negates the ILO standard.

In an earlier Judgment, the Court had held that:

“… section 35 [now 34(1)(b)] …, provides in subsection (1)(a) and (b) that a Federation of Trade Unions may be registered by the Registrar if its main objective is to represent the interest of employees and it is made up of 12 or more trade unions none of which shall have been a member of another registered Federation of Trade Unions. Section 35(1)(b) [now 34(1)(b)] is quite emphatic that a member of a registered Federation of Trade Unions cannot opt out to form another Federation of Trade Unions. Now, if the 2005 Amendment to the Trade Unions Act gave unfettered freedom to workers, would this be the case? We do not think so.” (See National Union of Shop and Distributive Employees (NUSDE) v. The Steel and Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria (Suit No. NIC/ABJ/74/2011) delivered on 8 March 2013 by a panel consisting Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip (Presiding Judge), Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae and Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim).

Indeed, the Court put it more poetically in the same NUSDE v.  SEWUN [supra], that the positive right to associate also includes the negative right not to associate. That the positive right to associate can only be exercised within the framework of the organizational jurisdiction of trade unions under the Trade Unions Act, CAP T9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, as amended. That workers who decide not to join the statutorily recognized unions listed under the Trade Unions Act have the right so to do but such workers “may have to remain union-less”.

In NUPENG v. MWUN [2012] 28 NLLR (Pt.80) 309 NIC, it was explained, inter alia that: “We must state that the dire need to streamline trade unions as a result of proliferation and a chaotic labour regime led to the restructuring of trade unions beginning with the restructuring exercise as contained in the legal notice No. 92 Re-structuring of Trade Unions, official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Nigeria No. 6 of 8th February 1978. This culminated in the restructuring exercise under Decree 4 and 26 of 1996 where trade unions were restructured into named unions listed out and their respective jurisdictional scope provided for, all in Third Schedule Parts A,B and C to the Trade Unions Act, as amended….”

PARADIGM SHIFT OR A STATE OF DISORDER IN THE LAW?

Reflecting on the experiences of trade union structuring between 1938 when the Trade Union Ordinance was enacted and today’s judicial embrace of ‘trade union plurality’, three patterns of trade union organization can be deduced:

• Trade union plurality which at a point witnessed the existence of over one thousand unions, multiple central labour organizations and a minimum of five workers forming a union;
• Trade union monopoly by statutory imposition of unions and central labour organizations, and
• Admixture of Trade union plurality & Trade union monopoly – the 2023 case law embrace of Trade union plurality, has, in reality, introduced an admixture of statutorily imposed unions based on the principle of trade union monopoly and court sanctioned unions based on the principle of trade union plurality.

It is thus clear that the regime of trade union plurality in the context of existing trade union monopoly  and earlier judicial decisions enforcing trade union monopoly in accordance with domestic law, the Trade Unions Act, is nothing but a reflection of A STATE OF DISORDER IN THE LAW. Law ought to facilitate orderliness and predictability. The reality in Nigeria today is nothing but confusion and unpredictability in the state of the law.

The principle of trade union plurality, if consistently implemented in principle, without deviations, may have implications, not only for multiple unions in an industry or workplace, it may also have implications for multiple central labour organizations or Federations of Trade Unions. It would mean that, in principle, as many unions as possible may exist in a workplace, regardless of whether or not the union is statutorily recognised to organise or unionize workers in the workplace/industry.

The trade union movement ought to discuss the unfolding reality, objectively, dispassionately and frankly, and advocate for law reform along the ILO standard and from the point of view of what is best for the working class.

Is it better to operate trade union monopoly with numerically strong/big unions and CLOs that are finding it difficult to mobilize and fight, as recent experiences have shown or is it better to operate trade union plurality with multiple unions and CLOs that may be weak numerically but may competitively fight for workers’ interest?

Ultimately, with the current judicial regime of trade union plurality, the increased/improved activity of unions in fighting for the welfare of the working class may determine the extent to which unions and the extant CLOs may be polarized in the coming period. In this regard, the experiences of ASUU and CONUA are relevant. In spite of the existence of CONUA, ASUU has remained strong because it has a tradition of actively fighting the cause of its members and the welfare of the larger society. How many industrial unions in Nigeria may survive if governments and employers actively seek to divide and weaken the individual unions by encouraging union formations based on the judicial pronouncement supportive of trade union plurality?

In principle, I stand for the maximum unity of the organisations of the working class on a national and international basis in order to have sufficiently strong muscle to win concessions and if possible, change society.

However, I equally contend that the right to form new unions [whether or not there are existing ones] is a fundamental right.

With the combined interpretation of ss. 1 (3), 40 and 254 C (1) & (2) of the Constitution, the principle of voluntarism as enshrined in S. 12 (4) of the Trade Unions Act, which is the same provision as Article 2 of ILO Convention No. 87 of 1978, trade union pluralism is a democratic principle, if the right to freedom of association is to be fully enjoyed.

With the exception of employer-nurtured unions, where unions are active, there may not be agitations for formation of new unions. But where members genuinely feel that their interests are not being protected in an existing union or Federation, no law should stop them from exercising their inalienable fundamental right of association. In such a context, healthy competition may take place in terms of each union or Central Labour Organisation (CLO) proving which union/CLO is more committed to serving workers’ interest.

It is such a liberalised context in the formation of political parties, fought under the leadership of the Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, that has brought about multiparty democracy in Nigeria, post military dictatorship era.  

The rest of this paper is devoted to highlighting issues around which advocacy/campaigns should be built for law reform in labour jurisprudence.

1. RIGHT TO STRIKE

The relevant domestic laws should be amended to recognise the right to strike.

S. 254C(1), CFRN, 1999: incorporates ratified ILO Conventions as constitutional provisions. ILO supervisory bodies take the position that the right to strike is implicit in C87 and 98 – freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively. In France and Italy, general strikes against policies which negatively impact on workers’ welfare are allowed. See O Molina and O Barranco, ‘Trade Union Strategies to Enhance Strike Effectiveness in Italy and Spain’ (2016) 22(3) Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 383, 388-389.

The following international instruments provide for the right to strike and should be used to support advocacy for law reform in support of the right to strike:

• The United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 8, paragraph 1(d), which provides that “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure- the right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country”)
• the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) (which prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes),
• the Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Recommendation, 1951 (No. 92) (which indicates that the parties should be encouraged to abstain from strikes and lockouts in the event of voluntary conciliation and arbitration, and that none of its provisions may be interpreted as limiting, in any way whatsoever, the right to strike).
• The following international instruments are of direct relevance under sections 254(C) (1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, to the extent that it can be argued they constitute international best practices. They are:
  • the Charter of the Organization of American States (Article 45(c))
  • the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 28).
  • Article 27 of the Inter-American Charter of Social Guarantees,
  • Article 6(4) of both the European Social Charter and the European Social Charter (Revised),
  • Article 8(1)(b) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador”, 1988).
  • Article 35(3) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
  • Elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour
  • the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 6),
  • the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Article 4),
  • the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 5)
  • the Arab Charter on Human Rights (Article 10).

It should be noted that Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (S.254C(1)(f), (h) & (2), as amended, the NICN is empowered to enforce:

• international best practices (S.254C(1)(f);
• international standards (S.254C(1)(h), and
• conventions, treaty or protocol already ratified by Nigeria [S.254C(2)].

Indeed, by section 1(3) of the Constitution, any other law (such as the TDA and Trade Disputes (Essential Services, and so on) which conflicts with the Constitution is to be adjudged unconstitutional, null and void.

The following judicial authorities support the right to strike:

i). RIGHT TO STRIKE ON WIDER ISSUES: the Federal Government of Nigeria & Anor v. Nigeria Labour Congress & Anor (Suit No. NICN/ABJ/179/2016, Judgment of which was delivered on 15/7/2016 by HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD, now President, NICN) at page 34).

ii). GENERAL RIGHT TO STRIKE INHERENT IN TRADE UNIONISM: Dr Olusola Adeyelu v. Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) & 2 ors (Suit No. NICN/LA/94/2017, judgment of which was delivered on 25/4/17).

iii). RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PICKETING: Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. v. NUPENG & Anor (2021) LPELR-52569 (CA).

iv). WHERE THE ACT OF THE EMPLOYER IS THE CAUSE OF STRIKE ACTION, WOULD THE EMPLOYEE NOT BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES: Olufeagba v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384 S. C at 441.

v). JUDICIAL BLESSING OF STRIKE ACTION TO ENFORCE CA: UNION BANK OF NIG. PLC V.  MRS. EDET (1993) 4 NWLR (PT 287) pg 288 @ 298 para H.

• CAMPAIGN FOR TIME-LIMIT WITHIN WHICH MATTERS MUST BE HEARD AND DETERMINED AT THE NICN

• MAKE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT (POPA) INAPPLICABLE TO EMPLOYMENT MATTERS. EMPLOYMENT IS CONTRACTUAL AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS GENERALLY, WHICH IS BETWEEN FIVE AND 6 YEARS, DEPENDING ON THE STATE OF THE FEDERATION

There are CONFLICTING JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT ON application of STATUTES OF LIMITATION to employment matters. This year alone, 2025, there are, at least two decisions of the Apex Court upholding the principle that statutes of limitation are applicable to employment matters, without expressly overruling the earlier decisions that make them inapplicable.

DECISIONS MAKING STATUTES OF LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYMENT MATTERS ARE:

1. MR MOSES ANOLAM V. FEDERAL UNIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY, OWERRI (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 651.
2. OKORONKWO V. INEC (2025) 8 NWLR (PT.1991) 131

AUTHORITIES OF THE APEX COURT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN OVERRULED AND WHICH HOLD THAT STATUTES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS.

The authorities along this line include

1. Rector, Kwara Poly v. Adefila (2024) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1944) 529 SC (decided in 2022 but reported in 2024), and
2. National Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission & 2 ors v. Ajibola Johnson & 10 ors (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247(SC). The latter expressly reviewed older authorities and held that limitation law, including the Public Officers Protection At does not apply to employment contracts.

ILO experts maintain that Statutes of Limitation negatively impact access to Labour Justice

ILO experts have not however set a rule on statute of limitations, they appear concerned that statutes of limitation negatively impact access to labour justice[1].

4. INITIATE LEGISLATION TO GUARANTEE A DECENT WORK AGENDA THAT WOULD MAKE EMPLOYERS, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, AND ALL OTHER OPERATORS & CONTRACTORS IN THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY TO BE BOUND BY ILO’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT WORK

Articles 11 & 12 of C181 – Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181) make this obligation very clear, as follows:

“A Member shall, in accordance with national law and practice, take the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection for the workers employed by private employment agencies as described in Article 1, paragraph 1(b) above, in relation to:

(a) freedom of association;

(b) collective bargaining;

(c) right to minimum wages and adequate earnings[2], paid as and when due;

(d) working time and other working conditions;

(e) statutory social security benefits;

(f) access to training;

(g) occupational safety and health;

(h) compensation in case of occupational accidents or diseases;

(i) compensation in case of insolvency and protection of workers claims;

(j) maternity protection and benefits, and parental protection and benefits” (See Article 11 of C181).

Similar provisions are made in Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention, 1949 (No. 94). The legal regime in Nigeria should be such that compliance with ILO Conventions on fundamental rights at work by employers, public and private, is a fundamental condition precedent to allowing companies to operate in any sector of the Nigerian economy.

5. CAMPAIGN FOR REPEAL OF OBNOXIOUS AND DRACONIAN LAWS, including the Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti-Sabotage) Act, CAP P.12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which provides for death penalty or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 years.

One singular draconian law characterizes the deprivation of fundamental right of oil workers in particular. This is the Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti-Sabotage) Act, CAP P.12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

This law criminalizes what it terms ‘sabotage’. Any form of strike action by workers can easily pass for ‘sabotage’ considering the definition of the scope of the meanings of ‘sabotage’ under the Act. This is because, under the Act, any form of interruption in the process of production or distribution of petroleum products qualifies for ‘sabotage’, which is punishable, on conviction, by death sentence or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 years.

Under section 1 sub (1) of the Act, any person who wilfully does any of the following things or any person who aids, incites, counsels or procures any other person, to do any of the following things, whether or not that other person does any of the things, shall be guilty of the offence of ‘sabotage”. The ‘things’ or acts spelt out are:

• doing anything with intent to obstruct or prevent the production or distribution of petroleum products in any part of Nigeria; or

• doing anything with intent to obstruct or prevent the procurement of petroleum products for distribution in any part of Nigeria; or

• doing anything in respect of any vehicle or any public highway with intent to obstruct or prevent the use of that vehicle or that public highway for the distribution of petroleum products,

Though this legislation has not been fully applied, nothing stops the State from fully applying it against striking oil workers, if and when the State feels strong enough to do so, for as long as it remains in the statute books. The mere existence of the Act is a threat to the exercise of fundamental right of peaceful action guaranteed under the constitution.

The National Assembly should not retain laws that threaten the exercise of fundamental rights.

6. CAMPAIGN FOR RATIFICATION OF ILO CONVENTIONS, which should include:

ratification of, and compliance with ILO C181: ARTICLE 1(1)(A) OF C181 “PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES CONVENTION, 1997 (NO. 181). Convention 181 provides that once the Private Employment Agency recruits workers for a company, the Private Employment Agency shall no longer be a party to the employment relationships which may arise between the employer and the workers supplied

7. CAMPAIGN FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OR INTEREST IN CASES OF  NON-PAYMENT OF SALARY AS AND WHEN DUE:

In Mr. Ojutalayo John Folayan v. Morlap Shipping Company Ltd [SUIT NO. NICN/LA/472/2012, Judgment of which was delivered on 4^th December 2015 by HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, now President, NICN], it was held that:

“On the argument of employer highhandedness, however, UMTHMB v. Dawa [2001] 16 NWLR (Pt. 739) 424 CA held that every employer, including every public body, must be careful not to abdicate or abuse its powers. That employers and public bodies are required by law, at all times, to act in good faith, reasonably and fairly towards people and matters under their charge in all circumstances. That in the determination of the employment of employees, they must at all times allow themselves to be guided by the rule of natural justice; and that the law does not permit employers to act arbitrarily. Aside from belatedly querying the claimant, I alluded earlier that the defendant did not come with clean hands having arbitrarily withheld the claimant’s salary. (By Underwater Eng. Co. Ltd v. Dubefon [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 156 SC, an employee’s salary becomes due and his right to it is vested at the end of each month.) All of this no doubt justifies some sort of compensation for the claimant given the power of this Court to do so under section 19(d) of the NIC Act 2006. Accordingly I award the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N750,000.00) as general damages/compensation to the claimant.” (p. 15).

8. PENSION: FIGHT AGAINST CONTRIBUTORY PENSION REGIME

The Pension Reform Act, 2014 exempts the following from the Contributory Scheme. In other words, the Act does not apply to them. They are:

• judicial officers mentioned in section 291 of the CFRN,
• members of the Armed Forces,
• the intelligence and secret services of the Federation.
• If indeed the Contributory Pension Scheme is more favorable to the employees than the previous non-contributory scheme, why exclude certain categories of public sector workers?  The exemption clause just shows that the new Pension Act offers less favorable benefits, if any, to employees.
• Sections 84(5), 124(5) and 291(3) of the CFRN vest in any persons who had occupied the positions of President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governors and top judicial officers, respectively, the right to guaranteed pension for life, at a rate equivalent to their last salary.
• But ordinary workers are to contribute a portion of their salaries before they can enjoy pension.

What is good for Mr. president is good for ordinary people.

9. Employees’ Compensation Act (ECA): NEED FOR REFORM

• The Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010 is the current Act, which has replaced the repealed Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Employee’s Compensation Act represents some improvement over the Workmen’s Compensation Act, even though it also contains retrogressive provisions.
• The National Industrial Court (NIC) is the only court to which appeals may be filed against the decisions of the Board under the Act. But the composition and constitution of the National Industrial Court (NIC), as presently prescribed in the Third Alteration Act, 2010 (i.e. third (2010) amendment to the 1999 Constitution, does not conform with the provisions of the ILO Recommendation No. 23 of 1925, which states that ‘every dispute relating to workmen’s compensation should preferably be dealt with by a special court or board of arbitration comprising, with or without the addition of regular judges, an equal number of employers’ and workmen’s representatives appointed to act as adjudicators by their respective organizations

Inadequacy of compensation

• Fatal cases: Death, resulting from injury or disease
• Dependant-beneficiaries are entitled to between 40% and 90% of total monthly remuneration of the deceased employee, sometimes, for the lifetime of the dependants. depending on the nature and degree of dependency relationship
• Permanent Total Disability: Periodic payment of 90 per cent of the employee’s earnings, until he attains 55 years of age, or if he is already 55 or more, then, for 2 years after the date of the injury
• Permanent Partial Disability Or Disfigurement: Periodic payment of 90 per cent of an estimate of the loss of remuneration, which results from the disability or impairment,until the employee attains 55 years of age, or if he is already 55 or more, then, for 2 years after the date of the injury.
• Temporary Total Disability: Lump sum payment based on the degree of disability in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Act.
• Temporary Partial Disability: Lump sum payment based on the degree of disability in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Act.

• The Second Schedule to the Employees Compensation Act provides for different percentages of the remuneration of the employee which can be claimed under different circumstances. For example, an employee who suffers loss of fingers is entitled to 50% of his remuneration; an employee who suffers loss of hand at the wrist is entitled to 70% of his remuneration whilst the employee who suffers total loss of sight is entitled to 100% of his remuneration

10. LABOUR ACT (1971): NEED FOR REFORM

• Labour Act (1971), provides for, among others:
  • Employers obligation to provide the terms and conditions of work within a period not later than three (3) months after the worker commences work [S. 7(1)].
  • Duty to medically examine workers being recruited before commencement of work or as soon as possible thereafter (S. 28).
  • Duty to provide transportation to the place of work and to take care of the health of workers in the process (s. 29), duties that are usually observed in the breach.
  • Protection of the health and welfare of women and children, particularly against night work, etc (Ss. 55, 60, 65,66).
  • But note that the Labour Act is not only archaic; it reflects a state of lawlessness and disorder. For example, in spite of the constitutional provisions vesting jurisdiction in the NIC in all employment related matters, sections 80 and 81 of the Labour Act vest jurisdiction on breach of employment contracts in the Magistrate’s Court, as follows:

“(1) A Magistrate’s court (or, in a state where a Magistrate’s Court has no civil jurisdiction, a district court) shall have jurisdiction to hear complaints under section 81 of this Act.” (S. 80(1).

• Examples of complaints under Section [S. 81(1)(a) & (b)] are:

“(1) where-

(a) an employer or worker neglects or refuses to fulfill a contract; or

“(b) any question, difference or dispute arises as to the rights or liabilities of a party to a contract or touching any misconduct, neglect, ill treatment or injury to the person or property of a party to a contract”.

11. FACTORIES ACT: NEED FOR REFORM

• The Factories Act provides, among others, for compulsory registration of companies, no overcrowding, fencing of dangerous equipment, coverage of vessels containing dangerous liquids, adequate training of any person to be assigned to operate machines, safe access into the factory, etc.
• Penalty in case of death or injury under the Section is N5,000 (Five thousand Naira). The Section provides as follows:
• “If any person is killed or dies or suffers any bodily injury, in consequence of the occupier or owner of a factory having contravened any provision of this Act or of any regulation or order made thereunder, the occupier or owner of the factory shall, without prejudice to any other penalty, be liable to a fine not exceeding N5, 000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and imprisonment, and the whole or any part of the fine may be applied for the benefit of the injured person or his family or otherwise as the court may order:

Provided that-

(a) in the case of injury to health, the occupier or owner shall not be liable to a penalty under this section unless the injury was caused directly by the contravention ….”

12. REJECT SLAVE CAMPS UNDER THE GUISE OF EXPORT PROCESSING ZONES

NEPZA ACT VS. CONSTITUTIONAL AND ILO RIGHTS

It is important to address assertions made recently by the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority (NEPZA) regarding Section 18(5) of the NEPZA Act, which provides that:

“There shall be no strikes or lock outs for a period of ten years following the commencement of operations within a zone and any trade dispute arising within a Zone shall be resolved by the Authority”.

We must note that the NEPZA Act is subordinate to the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO)—specifically Conventions 87 and 98, which guarantee the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. These Conventions, which have been ratified by Nigeria, are recognized as constitutional rights under Section 254C(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The ILO Committee of Experts has consistently affirmed that recognition strikes, as embarked upon recently by NUPENG and PENGASSAN, are lawful. Therefore, any statutory provision that attempts to prohibit such rights is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.

Furthermore, Section 4(e) of the NEPZA Act, which deals with the resolution of trade disputes, does not prohibit the existence of trade unions. Its scope is limited to resolving employment-related issues affecting individual employees and does not extend to collective labour disputes, which are governed by the Trade Disputes Act (TDA).

A CALL FOR ACTION

The liberation of the working class is the self-activity of the working class.

• Organised labour must wake up:
• Rights are not given; rights are to be fought for and won.
• Laws favourable to the working class must be fought for.
• When Injustice is law, organized collective resistance is an imperative duty!
• The trade union movement in Nigeria has a duty to resist unjust laws and fight for reforms of labour laws in all ramifications.
• However, let us appreciate that no matter how protective the laws and court judgments may be, we still need the enhanced organization and mobilization capacities to practically enforce and enjoy them, in the final analysis.
• Favourable and protective laws and judgments would remain myths and illusory without threats of, or actual industrial actions to enforce them.
• Let me close my presentation with the challenge for labour law reform thrown up by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip:

“…except for the 2005 amendment to the Trade Unions Act, the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution and the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010, all other labour laws are products of military rule) would not augur well for new democratic experience. New labour laws in terms of draft Bills were accordingly proposed by the DECLARATION PROJECT. They are the Collective Labour Relations Bill, Labour Standards Bill, Labour Institutions Bill and Occupational Safety and Health Bills. These draft Bills are currently before the National Assembly where the 6^th House of Representatives even conducted a public hearing on them.  While it is not known when they will see the light of day, the task of reforming the labour laws seems set on the Courts since society is not stagnant, ever changing with times …”

Labour Leader No. 1, Michael Imoudu, lived a life of service to the working class. The struggle was his life. For him, trade unionism was not a career. It was a mission. He was prepared, not only to lose his freedom but also to lose his life in the process. The challenge to us is to reproduce the Imoudus of our time. The reproduction of the Imoudus of our time is the precondition for transforming the trade union movement as an instrument for transforming the Nigerian society in the interests of the downtrodden workers and the poor.

I thank you for your attention.

Femi Aborisade

20/12/25

---

[1] A few links touching on expert observations which touch on statutes of limitation are provided below:

https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3965897,102839,Serbia,2018

https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:4350098,102700,Croatia,2023

https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:4326193,102700,Croatia,2022

https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COMMENT_YEAR:3960745,102700,Croatia,2018

[2] Many governments across the world increase their minimum wage every year as is the case in Britain (1^st April) and France (1^st Jan).  According to th;’zxcvbnm,./ e International Labour Organisation[2]:                                                          

Most frequently, countries adjust their minimum wages once a year. Some countries, adjust rates every six months, while others have 2-years intervals. Annual adjustments seem adequate in periods of low or moderate inflation