Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

A Government representative stated that the Government had encountered difficulties in submitting the reports on the application of ratified Conventions and deeply regretted the non-submission of some of the 25 reports due. Emphasizing that the Government remained committed to the international community as a whole, his Government pledged to submit all due reports before the end of the Committee’s work. In light of the existing limitations in Nigeria in terms of the number and skills of reporting officers, the Government would appreciate the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard. Furthermore, the Committee of Experts’ comments focused on alleged violations of the Convention by the Nigerian export processing zone (EPZ) authorities. Noting the request to amend the law establishing the EPZs in Nigeria, the speaker indicated that the Government had recently issued a guideline for the interpretation of that law, so as to ensure that the fundamental right to organize and bargain collectively would not be restricted. The outstanding labour bills mentioned by the Committee of Experts, were before the newly elected National Assembly. The Ministry of Labour had recently set up a new lobby team to co-opt the social partners and to seek ILO assistance in liaising with the legislature in order to achieve results. The speaker reiterated the commitment of his Government to providing up-to-date information, submitting the reports due and cooperating with the Office and the social partners to remedy the situation.

The Worker members indicated that the case had been examined several times during the 1980s and that the conclusions had been included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report in 1991, 1995, 1996 and 1997, since the Government had repeatedly failed to put an end to the serious violations of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had expressed its profound regret at the Government’s failure to provide either a report or a reply to the requests made to it, thus demonstrating a total lack of cooperation. However, the matters raised by the Committee of Experts concerned important provisions of the Convention and, on account of the violations of those provisions, the situation of the workers, especially of workers in the administration, continued to deteriorate. First, the Committee of Experts had previously noted that section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which denied the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Service, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigeria Telecommunications, had not been amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. In the EPZs, the situation was particularly serious and evidence of serious violations of the Convention had been collected. Section 13(1) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992), made it impossible for workers to form or join trade unions, to the extent that access to the EPZs was prohibited for worker representatives. The Committee of Experts had recorded numerous violations of the Convention, especially the broad powers of the registrar to inspect union accounts at any time, under sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Union Act. It was therefore essential that the Government amend those provisions. Moreover, even though the Act recognized the right to collective bargaining, each wage agreement concluded in the private sector had to be registered with the Ministry of Labour, which decided whether or not it would be binding, and there were restrictions on the right to strike owing to the imposition of compulsory arbitration leading to a final award. The EPZ authorities were both judge and judged in disputes under their jurisdiction, since section 4 of the above Decree prevented the trade unions from settling disputes between employers and workers. Finally, arbitration imposed by the authorities at the request of one party to the dispute restricted the autonomy of the bargaining partners.

Any issues relating to strikes were covered by legislation which imposed procedures that rendered the right to strike meaningless. Since the workers were obliged under the law to take a vote before holding a strike, the legislator should ensure that only the votes cast were taken into account. The list of essential services had been extended to include, in particular, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the postal service and port maintenance, but essential services should only be those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Consequently, it was absolutely necessary to redefine which services were deemed to be essential. In addition, all strikes relating to conflicts of interest or economic issues were prohibited. The Worker members also indicated that the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) and the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) had indicated that the major companies in the sector had constantly opposed attempts by the respective unions to be recognized with a view to negotiating collective agreements. The powers conferred on the minister enabling the administrative dissolution of trade unions formed part of a clear intent to tame the trade unions and keep a sword of Damocles hanging over them. The comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) made an already gloomy situation appear even darker. Many restrictions remained in force and violence, culminating in the murder of a trade unionist, continued to be perpetrated on trade union leaders. The Government needed to give answers to crucial questions, especially with regard to the amendment of section 9 of the Trade Union Act, and to undertake to repeal the provisions conferring extensive powers on a minister and thus enabling him to dissolve trade unions through an administrative procedure. The Government also needed to put an end to EPZs being areas beyond the law and take steps to remove the immunity enjoyed by the EPZ authorities so that the workers would not be at the mercy of the employers.

The Employer members highlighted that Nigeria had become a member of the ILO in 1960 and had ratified the Convention in the same year. In their view, it was of much concern that no report had been received from the Government, although the Conference Committee was examining this case for the fifth time and had included thrice its conclusions in special paragraphs, and the Committee of Experts had issued five observations since the adoption in 2005 of legislation amending trade union laws. This failure to report had obliged the Committee of Experts to repeat its previous observation. The Employer members considered that the most serious instances of non-compliance included: (i) violence against trade union members and leaders; (ii) trade union monopoly; (iii) restricted access for trade union representatives in EPZs; (iv) exclusion of a wide range of government departments and services from the right to organize; (v) interference from public authorities resulting in the ability to supervise union accounts at any time; (vi) minimum union membership requirement; (vii) broad definition of essential services; (viii) sanctions against strikes; (ix) dissolution of workers’ and employers’ organizations; and (x) restriction of the right of unions to form federations or confederations. These long-standing comments of the Committee of Experts remained relevant despite the amendment of trade union laws in 2005. Considering that the lack of information about the situation on the ground was regrettable, the Employer members urged the Government to respond to the observations made by the Committee of Experts.

As regards the remaining issues raised by the Committee of Experts, they wished to make two comments. First, noting that the Committee of Experts construed the compulsory arbitration prior to strike action currently in place as a restriction on the “right to strike” in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Employer members wished to express caution and pointed out that they had consistently asserted in this Committee that there was no right to strike under Article 3. In this regard, they referred to comments made at the 31st Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in 1948, according to which the Convention was not intended to be a “code of regulations” for the right to organize, but rather a concise statement of certain fundamental principles. The Employer members noted this was not a case of restricting the right to strike – a right not enshrined in the Convention – but rather that it violated Article 3 in terms of the right of workers’ organizations to organize activities and formulate their programmes. While arbitration could be helpful in resolving workplace disputes and hence avoiding recourse to industrial action, it should be entered voluntarily by the parties that would be bound by the outcome. Second, the Committee of Experts further suggested that, pursuant to Article 3, legislation concerning the strike vote should require the majority of the votes cast, not the majority of the workers. The Employer members were concerned that the Committee of Experts was going beyond what the Convention stipulated and felt that observations on compliance with Article 3 should not extend beyond the four basic rights guaranteed in this provision. Finally, they noted the ITUC’s comments on violations of the right to strike, arrest and detention of strikers, police repression during demonstrations and the refusal to recognize a trade union. As regards the Collective Labour Relations Bill pending before Parliament, the Employer members were unaware of its status, content, or plans for implementation. The Government had missed five times the opportunity to comment on the Committee of Experts’ observations since the adoption of the most recent trade union legislation. The Employer members again urged the Government to remedy its apparent current lack of collaboration with the Committee of Experts, and to report in detail not only on legislative aspects but also on the current practice at the national level. The Employer members noted the Government representative’s comments that future legislation or guidance would address many of the issues highlighted, however they viewed this with caution given the past failure of legislation to address such issues.

The Worker member of Nigeria indicated that the crux of the violations of trade union rights in his country was that it had been under military dictatorship for 29 years out of its first 39 years of independence. Thus, the law that had deprived, for ten years, workers in EPZs of the right to organize was a fall-out of military mentality, according to which the right to unionize was an impediment to productivity or good business. He welcomed the fact that the Constitution had repealed that legislative act. Furthermore, the military had banned categories of purely civilian workers from unionization, including staff in the Central Bank, Prison Service and the Mint. The subsequent democratic governments had continued in this vein. Those workers were defenceless even when subjected to subhuman treatment. With reference to the Customs and Excise Department and the Immigration Department, which had been unionized in 1979, the speaker indicated that, after the union had accused, in 1986, the relevant minister of unethical practices, the secretary, Bernard Odulana, had been detained without trial, and the union had been decreed out of existence. Henceforth, all efforts to lift the ban on that union had been turned down. Since 2000, a series of labour disputes over the continuous increase in the price of petroleum products had resulted in mass strikes in which the Government had used excessive force. During the general strike of June 2003, armed policemen deployed to stop the strike had shot dead 16 Nigerians. In 2005, new legislation had been adopted criminalizing workers who called a strike on “disputes of interest”, i.e. disputes that did not concern issues arising from the workers’ conditions of service or the existing collective agreement. Thus, unions were effectively banned from protesting against the Government’s socio-economic policies. The law also prohibited strikes that could affect the highways or the aviation industry, and prescribed prison terms for workers taking part in strikes contrary to the law. Finally, the speaker stressed that State authorities should not exercise the power to dissolve unions or pronounce on collective agreements freely entered into between employers and workers. Noting that the Government had been unable or reluctant to respond to these issues in a meaningful manner, he considered that it was imperative that decisive steps be taken which would assist the Government in tackling these matters with the seriousness they deserved. As regards the draft labour legislation, the speaker indicated that the labour bills mentioned by the Government were no longer before the National Assembly, since, according to the procedure, they lapsed if they were not considered within a certain period of time.

The Worker member of the United States expressed deep concern regarding the severe restrictions to freedom of association that applied in the EPZs due to the continuing failure of the Government to both amend the relevant law and sanction anti-union discrimination in practice. This Committee had repeatedly called upon the Government to amend the Export Processing Zones Authority Decree, which provided, inter alia, that “no person shall enter, remain in or reside in a Zone without the prior permission of the Authority”. This provision was used to deny trade union representatives’ access to workers employed within the EPZs. He stressed that governments should guarantee access of trade union representatives to workplaces, with due respect for the rights of property and management, so that trade unions could communicate with workers, in order to apprise them of potential advantages of unionization. The same Decree banned strikes for a period of ten years from the commencement of a company’s operations within a Zone, which was contrary to the Convention. Furthermore, the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) was empowered to resolve disputes between workers and employers. The EPZA had rebuffed prior efforts by the Ministry of Labour to establish an office in the EPZ to enhance labour inspection. In practice, freedom of association was routinely frustrated by the deployment of armed security guards to prevent trade union representatives from speaking with EPZ workers. Workers suspected of being pro-union were often subject to disciplinary sanctions or dismissed. It had also been reported that newly recruited workers in the EPZs were required to sign individual employment contracts in which they committed not to join a union. In this climate of fear and reprisals, the right of workers inEPZs to freely associate was severely limited. He finally noted that the Government continued to fail to submit reports on the application of the Convention, which signalled deep disregard for the fundamental rights of workers and tacit support for the ongoing violations occurring in the EPZs.

The Worker member of Swaziland pointed out that the situation of workers in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Services, the prison services, the Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the Central Bank and Telecommunications had not changed with respect to the enjoyment of their rights to organize and freely associate. Government actions continued to treat these workers as essential services workers. This Committee had, however, previously noted with concern that the definition of essential services provided for in the relevant legislation was overly broad. Since workers in these establishments were deprived of their right to freely form and join trade unions, they organized in socio-cultural leanings thereby reinforcing tribal and ethnic divisions. It had to be noted in this regard that ethnicity and tribalism were some of the issues threatening the cohesion, peace and stability of Nigeria. Furthermore, within these government departments and services, there were industrial discontents that could be effectively channelled and addressed through trade union organizations and the instrumentality of the collective bargaining mechanism. Employees were, however, left with no other option than to resort to petition writing and other self-help initiatives. Workers at the Security Printing and Minting Company Limited had repeatedly indicated their willingness to form and join trade unions of their choice, but the company management continued to deny their rights, including through the contracting of casual workers. It was particularly disturbing to note that the Government had not made any tangible progress nor had it taken visible and commensurate actions to give account to the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative expressed appreciation for the views of the social partners and laid out the three avenues of action that the Government should take for the proper implementation of the Convention. Firstly, the amendments to certain provisions of the current Trade Unions Act were urgent. Five pieces of legislation were awaiting adoption and the Government would intensify its actions to secure the passage of the bills. In this respect, a lobby group had been created recently to speak to legislators regarding these bills. The support of the social partners was essential to achieve the speedy enactment of this legislation. It needed to be recognized that such bills might require certain amendments, due to their prolonged stay at the legislative level. The Government would, through the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, address any lapses or new areas of concern that were not covered by such bills, in collaboration with the social partners and with ILO technical assistance. Secondly, regarding the EPZs, it needed to be recognized that the legislation in this regard had been enacted during the military era. The speaker expressed the desire to see this legislation amended, to allow for the right to organize within the EPZ. He underlined that interim measures had been taken, in the form of Ministerial Guidelines, which had been negotiated in cooperation with stakeholders. The Government would fully implement these Ministerial Guidelines, to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention. Thirdly, regarding the alleged restrictions regarding the right to organize for persons who were essential services workers, these inequities had their root in the military era, and these concerns would be addressed through the abovementioned bills. With respect to issues not covered by this forthcoming legislation, the speaker indicated an openness to further negotiations, and that the assistance of the social partners was essential in achieving proper compliance. The speaker also rejected the view that unions in some sectors were organized along tribal lines, emphasizing that unions in Nigeria were issue-based organizations. He concluded by stating that bold steps would be taken, in collaboration with the social partners and the Office, to achieve the aims of the Convention.

The Employer members expressed regret that an examination by this Committee was required to see a response from the Government, citing its failure to submit reports in reply to the Government to the Committee of Experts for several years. They noted that a new National Assembly had been formed, and that a lobby team had been created by the Ministry of Labour and Productivity. In addition, the Government had confirmed that a draft bill was still before the Assembly, which would address the Employer members’ concerns regarding the EPZ. However, the suggestion that such pending legislation would address the current breaches should be taken with much caution. The Government had had years to make such changes, and regretfully, had not, even in the course of the previous amendments in 2005. The conclusions should record the Government’s agreement to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and to work with the Office to address the concerns with regard to the Convention. The conclusions should also reflect the Government’s commitment to working with the international community, in addition to the Government’s commitment to making a full report in time for examination by the Committee of Experts at its forthcoming session.

The Worker members, replying to the statement made by the Employer members concerning the right to strike, reaffirmed their full support for the practice of the Committee of Experts on the issue, which coincided, furthermore, with that of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which was a tripartite body. They also noted with great concern that the Government was voluntarily shirking its obligations and undermining the Convention by its attitude, even though the Government representative had talked of change in referring to the draft legislation under consideration. The Government should take the following measures to: bring its legislation fully into line with the Convention without delay; repeal those provisions in its domestic legislation that gave the Ministry of Labour and Productivity the power to dissolve workers’ and employers’ organizations by administrative means; shed light on the circumstances surrounding the murders of trade union leaders and attacks resulting in serious injury; prosecute those responsible for criminal acts; stop depriving workers employed in public administration of the right to form trade unions; rid the petroleum industry of persistent anti-union attitudes; stop interference in internal trade union affairs; restore the right to organize to employees of the Central Bank, the prison services, the Immigration Department, the Security Printing and Minting Company Limited and the Customs and Excise Department; and establish, under ILO supervision, a timeline for bringing legislation on those various issues into conformity with the Convention, in close cooperation with the social partners. The Government should also submit a report on measures taken before the next session of the Committee of Experts.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee took note of the Government representative’s statement in relation to the difficulties encountered in supplying reports to the Committee of Experts. He further referred to the issuance of a recent Ministerial Guideline to prevent anti-union discrimination against any worker in the export processing zones (EPZs), which would remain in force until the EPZ law was amended. In addition, five Labour Bills had been drafted with the technical assistance of the ILO. He requested ILO training of newly elected legislators to raise their awareness of the obligations of the Government towards the ILO and expressed the hope that this would facilitate the said Bills being rapidly passed into law. He added that their passage should assist the necessary alignment of the Collective Labour Relations Bill with Convention No. 87.

The Committee noted with concern that there were a number of serious and wide-ranging issues raised by the Committee of Experts. These included reports of the murder of a trade union leader and violence against trade unionists, trade union monopoly and restrictions on the right to organize of certain categories of workers covered by the Convention, restrictions on unionizing rights of EPZ workers as well as on the access of trade union representatives to the EPZs and interference by the public authorities in trade union activities and functioning.

The Committee, as the Committee of Experts had done in its 2011 observation, recalled that freedom of association could only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety were fully respected and guaranteed. It requested the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the investigations being carried out with respect to the serious allegations of violence against trade unionists and on the results of any judicial proceedings in this regard and to ensure that any perpetrators were punished. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the steps taken to amend the provision permitting administrative dissolution of workers’ or employers’ organizations and to refrain in practice and amend legislation permitting interference in the right of public sector workers to organize freely, which contravened Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. More generally, it requested the Government to refrain from interference in trade union activities, particularly as regards the petrol sector, which contravened the Convention, and to restore the right to organize in the government services and departments mentioned in the observation of the Committee of Experts.

Noting the request for ILO technical assistance made by the Government representative, the Committee expressed the hope that such assistance could occur in the near future so as to enable the Government to take appropriate measures, in full consultation with the social partners, for the rapid adoption of the necessary legislation to bring the law and practice – including as regards EPZs – into conformity with the Convention and expected that the Government would provide in a timely manner full details of the steps taken in this regard and the legislation adopted to the Committee of Experts for examination at its session this year.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

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.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

A Government representative stated, with reference to the first point raised by the Experts concerning a single central trade union established by law under which certain registered unions were affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), that the four central labour organisations had of their own volition decided to merge to form the NLC and, by virtue of the Trade Union Decree of 1978, his Government had merely formalised the organisation which the workers had established themselves. The NLC was currently restructuring itself, from its present 41 industrial unions, to 22 industrial unions and he stressed that the Government had no hand in the present restructuring exercise. He believed that the Workers' member of Nigeria present in the present Committee was in a better position to speak on that particular issue.

Secondly, regarding the denial of trade union rights of certain categories of workers, he pointed out that in the local conditions this was based on the security nature of the services which the affected workers were providing: they were employed in services strategic to the Nigerian economy. In any event, he gave the assurance that this aspect of the labour legislation was currently under review by the National Labour Advisory Council.

Thirdly, regarding the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions, he stated that the law merely requested the unions to submit their audited accounts to the Registrar once a year. By means of the compulsory check-off system, the law empowered employers to deduct union dues from workers' wages at the source; these deducted amounts were paid into the accounts of the appropriate union. Therefore, the Registrar did not look into the details of how the money was spent because the accounts had to be audited by qualified registered accountants. The measure was merely to ensure that trade union accounts were in fact audited. The Registrar had the duty to remind unions to submit their accounts to auditors of their choice if they did not do so of their own vollition. The speaker noted, however, that any worker who so wished could opt out of the compulsory check-off system by informing his employer in writing.

Fourthly, on the question of strikes, he noted that there was a procedure laid down by law which unions had to follow if they intended to take strike action. For example, if the relevant collective agreement had provisions for the settlement of disputes, they should be exhausted, failing which this fact should be communicated to the Minister of Employment, Labour and Productivity who referred the dispute to an arbitrator, conciliator or industrial arbitration panel. If the dispute could still not be resolved, it was referred to the industrial courts. In spite of all these procedures, workers still went on strike in Nigeria; but the Government believed there was always a way of reaching agreement with trade union leaders through consultation, conciliation, arbitration, persuasion or adjudication.

Finally, referring to Decree No. 35 of 1989 which prohibited international affiliation of trade unions and directed the central trade union, industrial unions and employers' associations to cease any existing international affiliation inconsistent with the provisions of the Decree, he was pleased to inform the Committee that his Government had decided to repeal this law. The Attorney-General was currently processing the publication of the legal instrument of repeal which would, he expected, be released in due course.

The Workers' members noted that the comments made by the Committee of Experts were not new and had been raised for many years. It was clear that these were very important issues concerning the application of the Convention: the single trade union system; non-recognition of the trade union rights of certain categories of workers; the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise union accounts; and restrictions on the right to strike. Although it had been noted that, since 1989, the National Labour Advisory Council had been examining how to adapt the legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention, it was surprising to read in the observation that while this very examination was going on, Decree No. 35 of 1989 and other completely contradictory measures had been adopted. Regarding this ban on any international affiliation, the Government representative had stated that this Decree would be abrogated; as soon as this was officially done, the Government should inform the ILO so that this point could be examined. As for the other points raised by the Committee of Experts, they believed that the Government had to be urged to accelerate matters so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Employers' members agreed that these questions had been discussed for many years, at least three times in the last decade in the present Committee. They supported all the points that had been mentioned: the single trade union system; denial of the right to organise for certain workers; and the considerable interference in financial matters. With the exception of the restriction on strike action, they shared the view that there had been a clear violation of the Convention in this particular case. They wanted to hear the Workers' member of Nigeria on the question of the single trade union system, although they were sure that he would defend it. It was, however, a question of what the Convention provided, namely that there should be the possibility for the setting up of free unions and that this should not be restricted by law. This was obviously a problem in the present case. The 1989 Decree made the situation even more acute. Its repeal, as announced by the Government representative, would not resolve the other problems. They therefore believed that the present Committee should insist on a change in the legal situation in the very near future and that the case should be taken up once again very soon. They suggested that the conclusions should reflect the present Committee's reservation of the right to take steps if changes did not occur very rapidly.

The Workers' member of Nigeria stressed that, before the Trade Unions Decree No. 22 of 1987, there had been 1,500 trade unions in Nigeria which had been exploited by employers who, at one time or another, encouraged the unions to fight amongst themselves using"divide and rule" tactics. The workers had therefore believed that it was better to merge these unions, instead of allowing them to be exploited by various employers. A 1975 conference decided on such a merger and, in 1978, they requested legislation to recognise the one central labour organisation and the merging of 1,500 trade unions into 41 industrial unions. He believed this was good for the workers, good for the trade unions and good for the country. He thus asked the ILO to endorse this kind of arrangement. He added that, after almost three years of debate, a decision had been democratically taken to reduce the now 41 industrial unions to 22. This decision had been submitted to both the Federal Government and the employers in the tripartite national body which endorsed such arrangements through legislation. Such a legislative endorsement was necessary, otherwise there would be problems in negotiations with employers. Regarding the non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers (in the Mint, the Central Bank, external telecommunications and the customs and excise service), he believed that this was a gross violation of the Convention. The workers would continue to put pressure on the Government to see that workers in all these establishments would be allowed to unionise. He did not accept the Government's argument concerning customs and excise workers, according to which they could not organise in trade unions because they carried arms. The nature of their work entitled them to carry arms, but they were not members of the armed forces. As regarded the ban on international affiliation, his organisation had taken the matter up with the Government and the Government had agreed to repeal Decree No. 35. This was because the workers believed that if employers in Nigeria were allowed to affiliate to their counterparts throughout the world, there was no reason why workers should be discriminated against in affiliating with their colleagues in other parts of the world. But he was satisfied that the Government was taking the practical steps to have the Decree repealed.

The Government representative requested clarification from the Employers' members concerning their statement on strikes in essential services. Referring to the Workers' member of Nigeria, the speaker pointed out that, to the best of his knowledge, the documents concerning the restructuring of the NLC's affiliates into 22 industrial unions had not yet reached the Ministry in Lagos. Despite that, he was sure that the Government would agree to register the 22 industrial unions involved, because the restructuring had been done of the workers' own volition and the Government had no right to question such exercises. He thus assured the Nigerian Workers' member that the Government would not go against the NLC's wishes. On the question of the right to organise of customs workers and other workers in sensitive areas, his Government believed that a certain degree of caution should be taken in allowing persons carrying arms to unionise. He stressed that his Government was not trying to shy away from the Conventions it had ratified; it believed strongly in those Conventions and wanted to implement their provisions to the letter. However, situations in other parts of the world had to be considered. Lastly, he repeated that the Government was in the process of having Decree No. 35 repealed, but noted that it took time to respect all the procedures that had to be undertaken, including reference from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Justice. He hoped that before the next session of the Conference the Decree would be repealed.

The Workers' member of Nigeria pointed out that the documents concerning the restructuring of the trade union movement had been forwarded to the Government. On the question of adaptability to local conditions in which the customs and excise workers were employed, he believed there was nothing in Nigeria to prohibit the strict observance of the Convention. The reason for them carrying arms was well-known: there were many smugglers crossing the boarders carrying arms, and customs and immigration staff needed to be equipped in order to be able to do their work properly.

The Employers' members explained their reservation in reply to the Government representative's query: they felt that the Convention could be used as a basis from which to derive the right to strike, but believed that the limits on this right were not indicated expressly therein and that the Experts' views on limiting strikes only in essential services in the strict sense of the term could not be read from the Convention. This was because the wording did not so state and because the Convention had to be interpreted, like all international treaties, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Committee noted the report of the Committee of Experts and the oral information provided by the Government representative. It expressed its concern at the fact that the Government did not seem to have made any progress towards bringing its law and practice into conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning, in particular, the single trade union system established in the legislation, the non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers, and restrictions on the activities of trade unions. The Committee recalled the persistance of these various discrepancies for many years. In addition, it noted with concern that Decree No. 35 of 1989 constituted a serious violation of the right of workers' and employers' organisations to affiliate with the international organisations of their choice, as guaranteed in Article 5 of the Convention. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would take in a very short time the necessary steps to ensure full application of the Convention and, in particular, that it would abrogate Decree No. 35 in the near future as it had promised to do on several occasions and that it would communicate the repealing text to the ILO as soon as it was adopted. If it was the case that the situation did not evolve favourably in the near future, the Committee would have to consider other action or comments if this were not the case.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted the Trade Union (Amendment) Act (2005) and draws the attention of the Government to the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised its concern over the legislatively imposed trade union monopoly and in this respect, it requested the Government to amend section 3(2) of the Trade Union Act, which restricts the possibility of other trade unions from being registered where a trade union already exists. The Committee noted that there is no such amendment in the language of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. The Committee reiterates that under Article 2 of the Convention, workers have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 45). It therefore urges the Government to amend section 3(2) of the principal Trade Union Act so as to ensure that workers have the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing even if another organization already exists.

Organizing in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion with the EPZ authority on the issues of unionization and entry for inspection in the export processing zones. The Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, according to which section 13(1) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) makes it difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the EPZs. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that EPZ workers are guaranteed the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing, as provided by the Convention, and to transmit a copy of any new laws adopted in this respect. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations have reasonable access to EPZs in order to appraise the workers in the zones of the potential advantages of unionization.

Organizing in various government departments and services. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which denied the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and Nigeria Telecommunications. The Committee notes that this section was not amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. The Committee had noted that according to the Government’s statement, the Collective Labour Relations Bill, pending before the lower chamber of Parliament will address this issue. The Committee recalls that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and to join organizations of their choosing and that the only exceptions authorized by the Convention are members of the police and armed forces, who should be defined in a restrictive manner and should not include, for example, civilian workers in the manufacturing establishments of the armed forces. Furthermore, the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 55 and 56). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which is still in force, and indicate the progress made towards the adoption of the Collective Labour Relations Bill and send a copy of the legislation, once it is adopted.

Minimum membership requirement. The Committee had previously expressed its concern over section 3(1) of the Trade Union Act requiring 50 workers to form a trade union. The Committee considers that even though this minimum membership would be permissible for industry trade unions, it could have the effect of hindering the establishment of enterprise organizations, particularly in small enterprises. In these circumstances, the Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that this number is too high and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the minimum membership requirement, particularly in respect of enterprise trade unions, and thus ensure the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. The right of organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without interference from the public authorities. Export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in EPZs have the right to freely organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities, including through the exercise of industrial action. While noting the Government’s indication that the EPZ authority is not opposed to trade union activities and that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion on this issue, the Committee reiterates its previous request and expects that the necessary measures will be taken without delay so as to ensure that workers in EPZs enjoy the rights under the Convention.

Administration of organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to amend sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Union Act in order to limit the broad powers of the registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time and to ensure that such a power was limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint. The Committee notes that these sections were not amended under the new legislation and that the Government refers to the Collective Labour Relations Bill. The Committee trusts that the new legislation to which the Government refers will address this matter.

Right to strike. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee had noted that section 30, as amended by subsection (6)(d) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, continues to rely on the Trade Disputes Act to restrict strike action through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award. The Committee has already pointed out on several occasions that such a restriction, which is binding on the parties concerned, constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. Furthermore, the Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, according to which section 4(e) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) impedes trade unions from handling the resolution of disputes between employers and employees by granting this responsibility to the authorities managing these zones. The Committee recalls that arbitration imposed by the authorities at the request of one party is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and thus the autonomy of bargaining partners (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 257). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976, amending the Trade Disputes Act in order to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to only essential services in the strict sense of the term, public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis. Also, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 4(e) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) in order to guarantee the autonomy of the bargaining partners without giving the right to the authorities to impose compulsory arbitration.

Majority required to declare a strike. The Committee had noted that section 6 of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act amends section 30 of the principal Act by inserting subsection (6)(e), which requires the observance of a simple majority of all registered trade union members for the calling of a strike. The Committee considers that if a member State deems it appropriate to establish in its legislation provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 170). It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the new section 30(6)(e) accordingly, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Restrictions relating to essential services. The Committee had noted with concern that section 6 of the new Act relies on the definition of “essential services” provided for in the Trade Disputes Act (1990) to restrict participation in a strike. Specifically, the Trade Disputes Act defines “essential services” in an overly broad manner so as to include, among others, services for or in connection with: the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, any corporate body licensed to carry out banking business under the Banking Act, the postal service, sound broadcasting, maintaining ports, harbours, docks or aerodromes, transportation of persons, goods or livestock by road, rail, sea or river, road cleaning, and refuse collection. The Committee recalls that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Trade Disputes Act’s definition of “essential services”.

The Committee reminds the Government that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to the third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 160).

Restrictions relating to the objectives of a strike. The Committee had noted with concern section 30 of the Trade Union Act as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, limiting legal strikes to disputes constituting a dispute of rights, defined as “a labour dispute arising from the negotiation, application, interpretation or implementation of a contract of employment or collective agreement under the Act or any other enactment of law governing matters relating to terms and conditions of employment”, as well as to a dispute arising from a collective and fundamental breach of employment or collective agreement on the part of the employee, trade union or employer. The Committee considers that the legislation appears to exclude any possibility of a legitimate strike action to protest against the Government’s social and economic policy affecting workers’ interests. The Committee recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection, and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165). Therefore, it requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 6 of the new Act so as to ensure that workers enjoy the full right to strike and, in particular, to ensure that workers’ organizations may have recourse to protest strikes aimed at criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies without sanctions.

Other restrictions. The Committee had noted that section 42(1)(B) of the Trade Union Act, as amended, requires that “no trade union or registered federation of trade unions or any member thereof shall in the course of any action compel any person who is not a member of its union to join and strike or in any manner whatsoever, prevent aircraft from flying or obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike”. The Committee observes that this section appears to provide for two prohibitions: firstly, with regard to compelling non-union members to participate in a strike action and, secondly, the prohibition to obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike. The Committee recalls that taking part in picketing and firmly but peacefully inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace should not be considered unlawful. The case is different, however, when picketing is accompanied by violence or coercion of non-strikers. As to the second prohibition, the broad wording of this section could potentially outlaw any gathering or strike picket. The Committee recalls that the conditions that have to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful should be reasonable and, in any event, not such as to place substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations. In addition, given that aircraft-related services, with the exception of air traffic controllers, are not in themselves considered to be essential services in the strict sense of the term, a strike of workers in that sector or related services should not be the subject of an overall ban, as could be implied from the wording of this section. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 42(1)(B) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and the above principles, so as to ensure that any restrictions placed on strike actions aimed at guaranteeing the maintenance of public order are not such as to render any such action relatively impossible or ban it for certain workers beyond those in essential services in the strict sense of the term.

Sanctions against strikes. The Committee had noted that section 30 of the Trade Union Act, as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, makes strikers liable to the possibility of both paying a fine and being imprisoned up to six months, which might lead to a penalty which is disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the principle above.

Article 4. Dissolution by administrative authority. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 7(9) of the Trade Union Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel the registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations, as the possibility of administrative dissolution under this provision involved a serious risk of interference by the public authority in the very existence of organizations. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that this matter will be addressed in the Collective Labour Relations Bill. Noting that section 7(9) of the principal Act is still in force, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend it and to provide a copy of the new legislative Act once it is adopted.

Articles 5 and 6. The right of organizations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations and the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention to federations and confederations of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee had noted that section 8(a)(1)(b) and (g) of the new Act requires federations to consist of 12 or more trade unions in order to be registered. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of this requirement and, in particular, the level at which federations are established.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the very near future to make necessary amendments to the laws referred to above in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009. The Committee recalls that the 2008 ITUC comments concerned violations of the right to strike, arrest and detention of strikers, police repression during demonstrations and the refusal to recognize a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations on all comments submitted by the ITUC.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee notes with deep concern the comments presented by the ITUC in 2010 concerning violence against trade union leaders and members, including the murder of a trade union leader and serious physical assaults against trade union members. The Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights, and in particular, those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed, and that the killing or serious injury of trade union leaders and trade unionists requires the institution of independent judicial inquiries in order to shed full light, at the earliest date, on the facts and the circumstances in which such actions occurred and in this way, to the extent possible, determine where responsibilities lie, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of similar events. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted the Trade Union (Amendment) Act (2005) and draws the attention of the Government to the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised its concern over the legislatively imposed trade union monopoly and in this respect, it requested the Government to amend section 3(2) of the Trade Union Act, which restricts the possibility of other trade unions from being registered where a trade union already exists. The Committee noted that there is no such amendment in the language of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. The Committee reiterates that under Article 2 of the Convention, workers have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 45). It therefore urges the Government to amend section 3(2) of the principal Trade Union Act so as to ensure that workers have the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing even if another organization already exists.

Organizing in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion with the EPZ authority on the issues of unionization and entry for inspection in the export processing zones. The Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, according to which section 13(1) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) makes it difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the EPZs. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that EPZ workers are guaranteed the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing, as provided by the Convention, and to transmit a copy of any new laws adopted in this respect. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations have reasonable access to EPZs in order to appraise the workers in the zones of the potential advantages of unionization.

Organizing in various government departments and services. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which denied the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and Nigeria Telecommunications. The Committee notes that this section was not amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. The Committee had noted that according to the Government’s statement, the Collective Labour Relations Bill, pending before the lower chamber of Parliament will address this issue. The Committee recalls that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and to join organizations of their choosing and that the only exceptions authorized by the Convention are members of the police and armed forces, who should be defined in a restrictive manner and should not include, for example, civilian workers in the manufacturing establishments of the armed forces. Furthermore, the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 55 and 56). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which is still in force, and indicate the progress made towards the adoption of the Collective Labour Relations Bill and send a copy of the legislation, once it is adopted.

Minimum membership requirement. The Committee had previously expressed its concern over section 3(1) of the Trade Union Act requiring 50 workers to form a trade union. The Committee considers that even though this minimum membership would be permissible for industry trade unions, it could have the effect of hindering the establishment of enterprise organizations, particularly in small enterprises. In these circumstances, the Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that this number is too high and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the minimum membership requirement, particularly in respect of enterprise trade unions, and thus ensure the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. The right of organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without interference from the public authorities. Export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in EPZs have the right to freely organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities, including through the exercise of industrial action. Noting the Government’s indication that the EPZ authority is not opposed to trade union activities and that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion on this issue, the Committee reiterates its previous request and expects that the necessary measures will be taken without delay so as to ensure that workers in EPZs enjoy the rights under the Convention.

Administration of organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to amend sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Union Act in order to limit the broad powers of the registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time and to ensure that such a power was limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint. The Committee notes that these sections were not amended under the new legislation and that the Government refers to the Collective Labour Relations Bill. The Committee trusts that the new legislation to which the Government refers will address this matter.

Right to strike. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee had noted that section 30, as amended by subsection (6)(d) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, continues to rely on the Trade Disputes Act to restrict strike action through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award. The Committee has already pointed out on several occasions that such a restriction, which is binding on the parties concerned, constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. Furthermore, the Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, according to which section 4(e) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) impedes trade unions from handling the resolution of disputes between employers and employees by granting this responsibility to the authorities managing these zones. The Committee recalls that arbitration imposed by the authorities at the request of one party is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and thus the autonomy of bargaining partners (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 257). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976, amending the Trade Disputes Act in order to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to only essential services in the strict sense of the term, public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis. Also, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 4(e) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) in order to guarantee the autonomy of the bargaining partners without giving the right to the authorities to impose compulsory arbitration.

Majority required to declare a strike. The Committee had noted that section 6 of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act amends section 30 of the principal Act by inserting subsection (6)(e), which requires the observance of a simple majority of all registered trade union members for the calling of a strike. The Committee considers that if a member State deems it appropriate to establish in its legislation provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 170). It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the new section 30(6)(e) accordingly, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Restrictions relating to essential services. The Committee had noted with concern that section 6 of the new Act relies on the definition of “essential services” provided for in the Trade Disputes Act (1990) to restrict participation in a strike. Specifically, the Trade Disputes Act defines “essential services” in an overly broad manner so as to include, among others, services for or in connection with: the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, any corporate body licensed to carry out banking business under the Banking Act, the postal service, sound broadcasting, maintaining ports, harbours, docks or aerodromes, transportation of persons, goods or livestock by road, rail, sea or river, road cleaning, and refuse collection. The Committee recalls that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Trade Disputes Act’s definition of “essential services”.

The Committee reminds the Government that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to the third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 160).

Restrictions relating to the objectives of a strike. The Committee had noted with concern section 30 of the Trade Union Act as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, limiting legal strikes to disputes constituting a dispute of rights, defined as “a labour dispute arising from the negotiation, application, interpretation or implementation of a contract of employment or collective agreement under the Act or any other enactment of law governing matters relating to terms and conditions of employment”, as well as to a dispute arising from a collective and fundamental breach of employment or collective agreement on the part of the employee, trade union or employer. The Committee considers that the legislation appears to exclude any possibility of a legitimate strike action to protest against the Government’s social and economic policy affecting workers’ interests. The Committee recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection, and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165). Therefore, it requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 6 of the new Act so as to ensure that workers enjoy the full right to strike and, in particular, to ensure that workers’ organizations may have recourse to protest strikes aimed at criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies without sanctions.

Other restrictions. The Committee had noted that section 42(1)(B) of the Trade Union Act, as amended, requires that “no trade union or registered federation of trade unions or any member thereof shall in the course of any action compel any person who is not a member of its union to join and strike or in any manner whatsoever, prevent aircraft from flying or obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike”. The Committee observes that this section appears to provide for two prohibitions: firstly, with regard to compelling non-union members to participate in a strike action and, secondly, the prohibition to obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike. The Committee recalls that taking part in picketing and firmly but peacefully inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace should not be considered unlawful. The case is different, however, when picketing is accompanied by violence or coercion of non-strikers. As to the second prohibition, the broad wording of this section could potentially outlaw any gathering or strike picket. The Committee recalls that the conditions that have to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful should be reasonable and, in any event, not such as to place substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations. In addition, given that aircraft-related services, with the exception of air traffic controllers, are not in themselves considered to be essential services in the strict sense of the term, a strike of workers in that sector or related services should not be the subject of an overall ban, as could be implied from the wording of this section. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 42(1)(B) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and the above principles, so as to ensure that any restrictions placed on strike actions aimed at guaranteeing the maintenance of public order are not such as to render any such action relatively impossible or ban it for certain workers beyond those in essential services in the strict sense of the term.

Sanctions against strikes. The Committee had noted that section 30 of the Trade Union Act, as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, makes strikers liable to the possibility of both paying a fine and being imprisoned up to six months, which might lead to a penalty which is disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the principle above.

Article 4. Dissolution by administrative authority. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 7(9) of the Trade Union Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel the registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations, as the possibility of administrative dissolution under this provision involved a serious risk of interference by the public authority in the very existence of organizations. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that this matter will be addressed in the Collective Labour Relations Bill. Noting that section 7(9) of the principal Act is still in force, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend it and to provide a copy of the new legislative Act once it is adopted.

Articles 5 and 6. The right of organizations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations and the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention to federations and confederations of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee had noted that section 8(a)(1)(b) and (g) of the new Act requires federations to consist of 12 or more trade unions in order to be registered. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of this requirement and, in particular, the level at which federations are established.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the very near future to make necessary amendments to the laws referred to above in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009. The Committee recalls that the 2008 ITUC comments concerned violations of the right to strike, arrest and detention of strikers, police repression during demonstrations and the refusal to recognize a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations on all comments submitted by the ITUC.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008 concerning legislative issues already raised by the Committee, as well as comments concerning violations of the right to strike, arrest and detention of strikers, police repression during demonstrations and the refusal to recognize a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations thereon as well as on the 2006 comments by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC).

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted the Trade Union (Amendment) Act (2005) and draws the attention of the Government to the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised its concern over the legislatively imposed trade union monopoly and in this respect, it requested the Government to amend section 3(2) of the Trade Union Act, which restricts the possibility of other trade unions from being registered where a trade union already exists. The Committee noted that there is no such amendment in the language of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. The Committee reiterates that under Article 2 of the Convention, workers have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 45). It therefore urges the Government to amend section 3(2) of the principal Trade Union Act so as to ensure that workers have the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing even if another organization already exists.

Organizing in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion with the EPZ authority on the issues of unionization and entry for inspection in the export processing zones. The Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, according to which section 13(1) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) makes it difficult for workers to form or join trade unions as it is almost impossible for worker representatives to gain free access to the EPZs. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that EPZ workers are guaranteed the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing, as provided by the Convention, and to transmit a copy of any new laws adopted in this respect. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations have reasonable access to EPZs in order to appraise the workers in the zones of the potential advantages of unionization.

Organizing in various government departments and services. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which denied the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and Nigeria Telecommunications. The Committee notes that this section was not amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. The Committee had noted that according to the Government’s statement, the Collective Labour Relations Bill, pending before the lower chamber of Parliament will address this issue. The Committee recalls that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and to join organizations of their choosing and that the only exceptions authorized by the Convention are members of the police and armed forces, who should be defined in a restrictive manner and should not include, for example, civilian workers in the manufacturing establishments of the armed forces. Furthermore, the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 55 and 56). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which is still in force, and indicate the progress made towards the adoption of the Collective Labour Relations Bill and send a copy of the legislation, once it is adopted.

Minimum membership requirement. The Committee had  previously expressed its concern over section 3(1) of the Trade Union Act requiring 50 workers to form a trade union. The Committee considers that even though this minimum membership would be permissible for industry trade unions, it could have the effect of hindering the establishment of enterprise organizations, particularly in small enterprises. In these circumstances, the Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that this number is too high and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the minimum membership requirement, particularly in respect of enterprise trade unions, and thus ensure the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. The right of organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without interference from the public authorities. Export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in EPZs have the right to freely organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities, including through the exercise of industrial action. Noting the Government’s indication that the EPZ authority is not opposed to trade union activities and that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion on this issue, the Committee reiterates its previous request and expects that the necessary measures will be taken without delay so as to ensure that workers in EPZs enjoy the rights under the Convention.

Administration of organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to amend sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Union Act in order to limit the broad powers of the registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time and to ensure that such a power was limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint. The Committee notes that these sections were not amended under the new legislation and that the Government refers to the Collective Labour Relations Bill. The Committee trusts that the new legislation to which the Government refers will address this matter.

Right to strike. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee had noted that section 30, as amended by subsection (6)(d) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, continues to rely on the Trade Disputes Act to restrict strike action through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award. The Committee has already pointed out on several occasions that such a restriction, which is binding on the parties concerned, constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. Furthermore, the Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, according to which section 4(e) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) impedes trade unions from handling the resolution of disputes between employers and employees by granting this responsibility to the authorities managing these zones. The Committee recalls that arbitration imposed by the authorities at the request of one party is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and thus the autonomy of bargaining partners (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 257). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976, amending the Trade Disputes Act in order to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to only essential services in the strict sense of the term, public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis. Also, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 4(e) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority Decree (1992) in order to guarantee the autonomy of the bargaining partners without giving the right to the authorities to impose compulsory arbitration.

Majority required to declare a strike. The Committee had noted that section 6 of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act amends section 30 of the principal Act by inserting subsection (6)(e), which requires the observance of a simple majority of all registered trade union members for the calling of a strike. The Committee considers that if a member State deems it appropriate to establish in its legislation provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 170). It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the new section 30(6)(e) accordingly, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Restrictions relating to essential services. The Committee had noted with concern that section 6 of the new Act relies on the definition of “essential services” provided for in the Trade Disputes Act (1990) to restrict participation in a strike. Specifically, the Trade Disputes Act defines “essential services” in an overly broad manner so as to include, among others, services for or in connection with: the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, any corporate body licensed to carry out banking business under the Banking Act, the postal service, sound broadcasting, maintaining ports, harbours, docks or aerodromes, transportation of persons, goods or livestock by road, rail, sea or river, road cleaning, and refuse collection. The Committee recalls that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Trade Disputes Act’s definition of “essential services”.

The Committee reminds the Government that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to the third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 160).

Restrictions relating to the objectives of a strike. The Committee had noted with concern section 30 of the Trade Union Act as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, limiting legal strikes to disputes constituting a dispute of rights, defined as “a labour dispute arising from the negotiation, application, interpretation or implementation of a contract of employment or collective agreement under the Act or any other enactment of law governing matters relating to terms and conditions of employment”, as well as to a dispute arising from a collective and fundamental breach of employment or collective agreement on the part of the employee, trade union or employer. The Committee considers that the legislation appears to exclude any possibility of a legitimate strike action to protest against the Government’s social and economic policy affecting workers’ interests. The Committee recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection, and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165). Therefore, it requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 6 of the new Act so as to ensure that workers enjoy the full right to strike and, in particular, to ensure that workers’ organizations may have recourse to protest strikes aimed at criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies without sanctions.

Other restrictions. The Committee had noted that section 42(1)(B) of the Trade Union Act, as amended, requires that “no trade union or registered federation of trade unions or any member thereof shall in the course of any action compel any person who is not a member of its union to join and strike or in any manner whatsoever, prevent aircraft from flying or obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike”. The Committee observes that this section appears to provide for two prohibitions: firstly, with regard to compelling non-union members to participate in a strike action and, secondly, the prohibition to obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike. The Committee recalls that taking part in picketing and firmly but peacefully inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace should not be considered unlawful. The case is different, however, when picketing is accompanied by violence or coercion of non-strikers. As to the second prohibition, the broad wording of this section could potentially outlaw any gathering or strike picket. The Committee recalls that the conditions that have to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful should be reasonable and, in any event, not such as to place substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations. In addition, given that aircraft-related services, with the exception of air traffic controllers, are not in themselves considered to be essential services in the strict sense of the term, a strike of workers in that sector or related services should not be the subject of an overall ban, as could be implied from the wording of this section. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 42(1)(B) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and the above principles, so as to ensure that any restrictions placed on strike actions aimed at guaranteeing the maintenance of public order are not such as to render any such action relatively impossible or ban it for certain workers beyond those in essential services in the strict sense of the term.

Sanctions against strikes. The Committee had noted that section 30 of the Trade Union Act, as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, makes strikers liable to the possibility of both paying a fine and being imprisoned up to six months, which might lead to a penalty which is disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the principle above.

Article 4. Dissolution by administrative authority.  In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 7(9) of the Trade Union Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel the registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations, as the possibility of administrative dissolution under this provision involved a serious risk of interference by the public authority in the very existence of organizations. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that this matter will be addressed in the Collective Labour Relations Bill. Noting that section 7(9) of the principal Act is still in force, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend it and to provide a copy of the new legislative Act once it is adopted.

Articles 5 and 6. The right of organizations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations and the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 to federations and confederations of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee had noted that section 8(a)(1)(b) and (g) of the new Act requires federations to consist of 12 or more trade unions in order to be registered. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of this requirement and, in particular, the level at which federations are established.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the very near future to make necessary amendments to the laws referred to above in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2432.

The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 10 August 2006, addressing several legislative issues and numerous violations of trade union rights in practice. In particular, the ICFTU alleges that the criminal trial of six trade union leaders arrested in September 2004 was still not completed, and refers to numerous instances of intervention in trade union activities, including arrests and acts of violence, by the police and the state security services. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on these comments in its next report.

The Committee notes the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, 2005, and draws the attention of the Government to the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. (a) Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised its concern over legislatively imposed trade union monopoly. In this respect, it requested the Government to amend section 3(2) of the Trade Union Act, which restricted the possibility of other trade unions from being registered where a trade union already existed. In its report, the Government indicates that section 3(2) has been amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act. Noting that there is no such amendment in the language of the Act, the Committee reiterates that under Article 2 of the Convention workers have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 45). It therefore requests the Government to amend section 3(2) of the principal Act so as to ensure that workers have the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing even if another organization already exists.

2. The Committee notes with satisfaction that under the Trade Union (Amendment) Act, section 33 of the principal Act, which previously required all registered trade unions to be affiliated to the central labour organization named in the same section, was repealed.

In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the impact of the deletion of section 33 of the Trade Union Act, which provided that the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) shall be registered as the only central labour organization in Nigeria, on the existence and functioning of the NLC. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the NLC is still in existence.

(b) Organizing in export processing zones. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion with the EPZ authority on the issues of unionization and entry for inspection in the export processing zones. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that EPZ workers are guaranteed the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing, as provided by the Convention, and to transmit a copy of any new laws adopted in this respect. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations have reasonable access to EPZs in order to appraise the workers in the zones of the potential advantages of unionization.

(c) Organizing in various government departments and services. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, which denied the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the prison services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and Nigerian telecommunications. The Committee notes that this section was not amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) Act and that according to the Government’s statement, the Collective Labour Relations Bill, pending before the lower chamber of Parliament will address this issue. The Committee recalls that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and to join organizations of their choosing and that the only exceptions authorized by Convention No. 87 are members of the police and armed forces, who should be defined in a restrictive manner and should not include, for example, civilian workers in the manufacturing establishments of the armed forces. Furthermore, the functions exercised by employees of customs and excise, immigration, prisons and preventive services should not justify their exclusion from the right to organize on the basis of Article 9 of Convention No. 87 (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 55 and 56). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11 of the Trade Union Act, which is still in force, and keep it informed of the progress made towards the adoption of the Collective Labour Relations Bill and send a copy of the legislation, once it is adopted.

(d) Minimum membership requirement. The Committee had previously expressed its concern over section 3(1) of the Trade Unions Act requiring 50 workers to form a trade union. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the national practice has shown that a 50-membership threshold does not hinder the establishment of a trade union. The Committee considers that even though this minimum membership would be permissible for industry trade unions, it could have the effect of hindering the establishment of enterprise organizations, particularly in small enterprises. In these circumstances, the Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that this number is too high and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the minimum membership requirement, particularly in respect of enterprise trade unions, and thus ensure the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. The right of organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without interference from the public authorities. (a) Export processing zones. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in EPZs have the right to freely organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities, including through the exercise of industrial action. Noting the Government’s indication that the EPZ authority is not opposed to trade union activities and that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion on this issue, the Committee reiterates its previous request and expects that the necessary measures will be taken without delay so as to ensure that workers in EPZs enjoy the rights under the Convention.

(b) Conditional check-off facilities. The Committee had previously expressed its concern over section 16 of the Trade Unions Act, which conditioned check-off facilities on the inclusion of “no-strike” clauses. The Committee notes with satisfaction that new section 16A does not subject check-off facilities for workers to any such conditionality.

(c) Administration of organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to amend sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Unions Act in order to limit the broad powers of the registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time and to ensure that such a power was limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint. The Committee notes that these sections were not amended under the new legislation and that the Government refers to the Collective Labour Relations Bill. The Committee trusts that the new legislation to which the Government refers will address this matter.

(d) Right to strike. 1. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that section 30, as amended by section (6)(d) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, continues to rely on the Trade Disputes Act to restrict strike action through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award. The Committee has already pointed out on several occasions that such a restriction, which is binding on the parties concerned, constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976 amending the Trade Disputes Act in order to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to only essential services in the strict sense of the term, public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis.

2. Strike quorum. The Committee notes that section 6 of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act amends section 30 of the principal Act by inserting subsection (6)(e), which requires the observance of a quorum of a simple majority of all registered trade union members for the calling of a strike. The Committee considers that if a member State deems it appropriate to establish in its legislation provisions, which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 170). It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend new section 30(6)(e) accordingly, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

3. Restrictions relating to essential services. The Committee notes with concern that section 6 of the new Act relies on the definition of “essential services” provided for in the Trade Disputes Act (1990) to restrict participation in a strike. Specifically, the Trade Disputes Act defines “essential service” overly broad so as to include, amongst others, service for or in connection with: the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Limited, any corporate body licensed to carry on banking business under the Banking Act, the postal service, sound broadcasting, maintaining ports, harbours, docks or aerodromes, transportation of persons, goods or livestock by road, rail, sea or river, road-cleansing, and the disposal of night soil and rubbish. The Committee recalls that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Trade Disputes Act’s definition of “essential services”. The Committee reminds the Government that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to the third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 160).

4. Restrictions relating to the objectives of a strike. The Committee notes with concern section 30 of the Trade Unions Act as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, limiting legal strikes to disputes constituting a dispute of right, defined as “a labour dispute arising from the negotiation, application, interpretation or implementation of a contract of employment or collective agreement under the Act or any other enactment of law governing matters relating to terms and conditions of employment”, as well as to a dispute arising from a collective and fundamental breach of employment or collective agreement on the part of the employee, trade union or employer. It appears to the Committee that the legislation would exclude any possibility of a legitimate strike action to protest against the Government’s social and economic policy affecting workers’ interests. The Committee recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action not only to support their position regarding particular employment, but also in the search for solutions posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, social protection, and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165). Therefore, it requests the Government to amend section 6 of the new Act so as to ensure that workers enjoy the full right to strike and, in particular, to ensure that workers’ organizations may have recourse to protest strikes aimed at criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies without sanctions.

5. Other restrictions. The Committee notes that section 42(1)(B) of the Trade Unions Act, as amended, requires that “no trade union or registered federation of trade unions or any member thereof shall in the course of any action compel any person who is not a member of its union to join and strike or in any manner whatsoever, prevent aircrafts from flying or obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike”. This section appears to provide for two prohibitions: firstly, with regard to compelling non-union members to participate in a strike action and, secondly, the prohibition to obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to the strike. The Committee recalls that taking part in picketing and firmly but peacefully inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace should not be considered unlawful. The case is different, however, when picketing is accompanied by violence or coercion of non-strikers. As to the second prohibition, the broad wording of this section could potentially outlaw any gathering or strike picket. The Committee recalls that the conditions that have to be fulfilled under the law in order to render a strike lawful should be reasonable and, in any event, not such as to place substantial limitation on the means of action open to trade union organizations. In addition, given that aircraft-related services, with the exception of air traffic controllers, are not in themselves considered to be essential services, a strike of workers in that sector or related services should not be the subject of an overall ban, as could be implied from the wording of this section. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 42(1)(B) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and the above principles and so as to ensure that any restrictions placed on strike actions aimed at guaranteeing the maintenance of public order are not such as to render any such action relatively impossible or ban it for certain workers beyond those in essential services.

6. Sanctions against strikes. The Committee notes that section 30 of the Trade Unions Act, as amended by section 6(d) of the new Act, makes strikers liable to the possibility of both paying a fine and being imprisoned up to six months, which might lead to a disproportionate penalty to the seriousness of the violation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principle of freedom of association. The Committee considers that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 177). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that sanctions against strikers are proportionate to the offence committed and that no measures of imprisonment could be imposed unless criminal or violent acts have been committed.

Article 4. Dissolution by administrative authority. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act by repealing the broad authority of the minister to cancel the registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations, as the possibility of administrative dissolution under the provision involved a serious risk of interference by the public authority in the very existence of organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that this matter will be addressed in the Collective Labour Relations Bill. Noting that section 7(9) of the principal Act is still in force, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend it and to provide a copy of the new legislative Act once it is adopted.

Articles 5 and 6. The right of organizations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations and the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 to federations and confederations of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that section 8(a)(1)(b) and (g) of the new Act requires federations to consist of 12 or more trade unions in order to be registered. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of this requirement and, in particular, the level at which federations are established.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the very near future to make necessary amendments to the laws referred to above in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee takes note of the information in the report submitted by the Government and the comments made by the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU). The Committee also takes note of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, 2004, passed by the Senate and pending before the House of Representatives, which appears to address a number of the comments made by the OATUU.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, with ILO technical assistance and the involvement of social partners through the National Labour Advisory Council, the review of the labour laws of the country is still ongoing. The Committee trusts that this review will take into account all of the outstanding comments so as to ensure the full application of the Convention and requests the Government to keep the Committee updated as to the Bill’s progress and to transmit a copy of all relevant legislative texts as soon as they have been adopted.

Article 2 of the Convention. (a) Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the restrictions imposed by Decree No. 4 of 1996 have been amended by Decree No. 1 of 1999 which provides for the registration of other unions with no limitations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had drawn attention to the contradiction between section 3(2) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 which restricts the possibility of other trade unions being registered to represent workers in a place where a trade union already exists and the annexed list of industrial unions that allows for the registration of other unions. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to rectify this contradiction by amending section 3(2) in order to ensure that workers have the right to form and join the organization of their own choosing even if another organization already exists. The Committee asks the Government once again to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had indicated the need to amend section 33(2) of the Trade Unions Act which deems all registered trade unions to be affiliated to the central labour organization named in section 33(1), in order to ensure that workers have the right to form and join the union of their choosing at all levels outside the trade union specifically mentioned in the law if they so wish. The Committee notes with interest that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, 2004, proposes the deletion of section 33 of the principal Act and thus allows for the establishment of other central labour organizations.

The Committee also notes that the OATUU has drawn attention to a proposed amendment under a previous draft bill to amend the Trade Unions Act which provided that the Registrar should remove from the register the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) as the only central labour organization in Nigeria. The OATUU emphasizes that the right of Nigerian workers to belong through their industrial unions to the NLC should be respected and guaranteed and that the deregistration of the NLC by virtue of the said amendment would have amounted to a violation of the Convention. Noting that the most recent available version of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill does not refer to the removal of NLC from the register, the Committee trusts that the deletion of section 33 shall in no way affect its registration. It requests the Government to indicate the implications of these changes on the existence and functioning of the NLC.

(b) Organizing in export processing zones. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the legally imposed restriction on union activities in export processing zones (EPZs) lapsed in 2003 and that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is in discussion with EPZ employers on the issues of unionization and entry for inspection. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that EPZ workers are guaranteed the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing, as provided by the Convention, and to transmit a copy of any new laws adopted in this respect. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations have reasonable access to EPZs in order to appraise the workers in the zones of the potential advantages of unionization.

(c) Organizing in various government departments and services. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Unions Act which denies the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian External Telecommunications. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in this regard to the labour law review and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the aforesaid categories of workers are granted the right to organize.

(d) Minimum membership requirement. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had expressed the view that the requirement under section 3(1) of the Trade Unions Act of 50 workers to form a trade union is too high and could, in practice, restrict the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing. Noting the Government’s reference to the labour law review in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the minimum membership requirement and thus ensure the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. The right of organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without interference from the public authorities. (a) Export processing zones. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had expressed the view that section 18(5) of the Export Processing Zones Act, which forbids strikes for a period of ten years following the commencement of operations within a zone, is incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Noting that the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity is still in discussion regarding EPZs and unionization, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in EPZs have the right to freely organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities, including through the exercise of industrial action.

(b) Conditional check-off facilities. In its previous comments, the Committee had expressed the view that section 5(b) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 that conditioned check-off facilities on the inclusion of "no-strike" clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements amounted to undue influence by the authorities in the right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes and organize their activities without interference by the Government. The Committee notes that the OATUU has drawn attention to the proposed amendment to section 16A of a draft Bill to amend the Trade Unions Act which maintained the conditional check-off facilities set out in section 5(b). The Committee notes with interest, however, that the new section 16A under the most recent version of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill as passed by the Senate does not subject check-off facilities for workers to any such conditionality and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made towards the adoption of this Bill.

(c) Compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls that it has pointed out that restriction on strike action through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award which is binding on the parties concerned constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. Moreover, sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibition in question is in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976 amending the Trade Disputes Act in order to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to only essential services in the strict sense of the term, public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that any sanctions for strike action are only possible where the prohibition is in conformity with the Convention and, even in such cases, that the sanctions are not disproportionate.

The Committee further notes that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill would amend section 30 of the Principal Act by inserting subsection (7) specifying that the provisions for arbitration in the Trade Disputes Act shall apply in all disputes affecting the provision of essential services and that the determination of the National Industrial Court in all such disputes shall be final. However, one of the conditions for a valid strike more generally stipulated by the newly inserted subsection (6) of section 30 is that the provisions for arbitration in the Trade Disputes Act have been complied with. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take necessary measures in respect of the Trade Unions Amendment Bill to ensure that compulsory arbitration be restricted to disputes related to essential services in the strict sense of the term.

(d) Further obstacles. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had indicated the need for the amendment of sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Unions Act in order to limit the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time and to ensure that such a power is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint. Noting that this matter appears not to be addressed in the Trade Unions Bill pending before the House of Representatives but that the Government refers to the ongoing process of the labour law review, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to limit the broad powers of the Registrar in this respect.

Article 4. Dissolution by administrative authority. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had referred to the need to amend section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel the registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations, as the possibility of administrative dissolution under the provision involved a serious risk of interference by the public authority in the very existence of organizations. Noting that this matter appears not to be addressed in the Trade Unions Bill pending before the House of Representatives but that the Government refers to the ongoing process of the labour law review, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Articles 5 and 6. The right of organizations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations and the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 to federations and confederations of workers’ and employers’ organizations. Affiliation of trade unions with international workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had emphasized that the requirement under the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) (Amendment) Decree No. 2 of 1999, of ministerial approval for international affiliation on the basis of a detailed application, infringes on the right of workers’ organizations to affiliate with international workers’ organizations freely. Noting that this matter appears not to be addressed in the Trade Unions Bill pending before the House of Representatives but that the Government refers to the ongoing process of the labour law review, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend Decree No. 2 of 1999 so as to ensure full conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the very near future to make necessary amendments to the laws referred to above in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention (the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing)

  (a)  Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly under Decree No. 4 of 1996

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act, which provides that no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where a trade union already exists. In this regard, the Government indicates that an amendment to section 3(2) might give rise to a crisis in the trade union movement and that, within the framework of the actual law, workers can still enjoy freedom to associate. While noting that the listing of the 29 industrial unions set forth in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 provides for the registration of other unions, the Committee considers that the maintenance of the restriction in section 3(2) contradicts such a possibility. The Committee recalls that for the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to exist, such freedom has to be fully established and respected in law and in fact. Although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 91). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to rectify the abovementioned contradiction, so as to ensure that workers have the right to form and join the organization of their own choosing even if another organization already exists.

With regard to section 33(2) of the Trade Unions Act, which deems all registered trade unions to be affiliated to the Central Labour Organization, which is named in the law (section 33(1)), the Committee notes the Government’s indication to the effect that it will amend section 33(1) during the ongoing review of labour laws, subject to the concurrence of the social partners. The Committee trusts that the necessary amendments will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy of the relevant text.

  (b)  Organizing in export processing zones

In its previous comments, the Committee noted section 4(e) of the Export Processing Zones Decree, 1992, which sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the Export Processing Zones Authority to include the resolution of disputes between "employers and employees" (rather than workers’ organizations or unions) in the zone and section 13(1), which states that no person shall enter, remain in or reside in a zone without the prior permission of the Authority. In this regard, the Government indicates that it will review this issue with the Ministry of Commerce. The Committee takes note of this information and once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that zone workers may form and join the organization of their own choosing in the furtherance and defence of their occupational interests and, in particular, the measures taken to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations may have reasonable access to the zones so that trade unions can communicate with workers in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization.

  (c)  Organizing in various government departments and services

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, which denies the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian External Telecommunications. In this regard, the Government indicates that, for security purposes, section 11 has been retained but in practice, provisions have been made for joint consultative committees in the establishments mentioned in section 11(2) of the Act, and these committees perform similar functions to those of trade unions. The Committee recalls that, under Article 9 of the Convention, the right to organize may only be restricted in respect of the police and armed forces. The Committee has already considered that prison staff do not fall within the exclusion permitted by this Article, and equally considers that the employees of the other abovementioned departments and services must also be ensured the right to organize (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 56). Furthermore, the Committee is of the opinion that the establishment of joint consultative committees cannot be considered as a substitute for this fundamental right. The Committee does consider, however, that restrictions may be imposed on employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services and Nigerian External Telecommunications, in respect of their right to take industrial action either due to their classification as public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or due to the essential nature of their services. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend its legislation so that these categories of workers are granted the right to organize, and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

  (d)  Further obstacles

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will amend section 3(1) of the Trade Unions Act, which sets the excessively high requirement of 50 workers to form a trade union. The Committee considers that such a requirement severely restricts the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing, and recalls that the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the relevant amendment once adopted.

Article 3 (the right to elect officers in full freedom, to organize administration and activities and to formulate programmes without government interference)

  (a)  The right to strike

1. Export processing zones. With regard to section 18(5) of the Export Processing Zones Act, which forbids strikes for a period of ten years following the commencement of operations within a zone, the Committee recalled in its previous comments that the prohibition was incompatible with the provisions of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 169) and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, including those in export processing zones, had the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and that such organizations had the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement to the effect that it will examine the necessary follow-up actions with the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the above provision will be brought into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention in the near future and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.

2. Conditional check-off facilities. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that section 5(b) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999, conditioned check-off facilities on the inclusion of "no-strike" clauses in relevant collective bargaining agreements, which amounted to undue influence by the authorities in the right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes and organize their activities without interference by the Government, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It therefore had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to allow workers’ and employers’ organizations to bargain freely on this matter. While noting the Government’s indication that this section will be abrogated during the next review of labour laws, the Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the relevant amendment once adopted.

3. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee continues to note that the legislative provisions allowing for the imposition of compulsory arbitration (other than in cases of essential services in the strict sense of the term and for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis) under penalty of a fine or six months’ imprisonment for any person failing to comply with a final award issued by the National Industrial Court (section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976 amending the Trade Disputes Act) have not been amended. The Committee points out that restrictions on strike action, in particular through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award, which is binding on the parties concerned, constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes, and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 153). Moreover, the Committee considers that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the Convention. Even in such cases, both excessive recourse to the courts in labour relations and the existence of heavy sanctions for strike action may well create more problems than they resolve. The Committee recalls that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, and if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 177). The Committee therefore must once again request the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend this provision in order to ensure that workers’ organizations may formulate their programmes and organize their activities free from interference by the public authorities.

  (b)  Further obstacles

As to the need to amend sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Unions Act in order to limit the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that these legislative provisions will be amended. The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed and, in this regard, to transmit a copy of the amendment as soon as it has been adopted.

Article 4 (cancellation of registration by administrative authority)

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel the registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication according to which it will submit the issue to the National Labour Advisory Council for consideration during the review of labour laws. Recalling that the possibility of administrative dissolution as set out in this provision involves a serious risk of interference by the authority in the very existence of organizations, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention and to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

Articles 5 and 6 (international affiliation)

The Committee notes once again that no amendments have been made to the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) (Amendment) Decree No. 2 of 1999, which provides that an application for affiliation must be submitted with details to the Minister for approval. The Committee strongly emphasizes that a provision which requires ministerial approval for international affiliation on the basis of a detailed application infringes on the right of workers’ organizations to affiliate with international workers’ organizations freely. It therefore requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to amend Decree No. 2 of 1999, so as to ensure full conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken in the very near future to amend these legislative provisions in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention and reminds the Government of the availability of ILO technical assistance in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the amendment made in 1996 to section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act giving broad authority to the Minister to revoke the certification of any registered trade union due to "overriding public interest". Recalling that organizations of workers and employers should not be liable to dissolution by administrative authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel registration so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with this Article of the Convention.

  Articles 5 and 6 (international affiliation)

The Committee notes, that the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) (Amendment) Decree No. 2 of 1999 still provides that an application for affiliation must be submitted with details to the Minister for approval. While noting that a refusal of an application for international affiliation can be appealed to the National Industrial Court, the Committee considers that a provision which requires ministerial approval for international affiliation on the basis of a detailed application infringes on the rights of workers’ organizations to affiliate with international workers’ organizations freely. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend this Decree so that workers’ organizations may affiliate with the international workers’ organization of their own choosing free from interference by the public authorities.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

It recalls that its previous comments concerned a certain number of divergencies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention (the right of workers to
form and join organizations of their own choosing)

(a)  Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly and
  the restructuring of industrial unions under
  Decree No. 4 of 1996

The Committee notes that under section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where a trade union already exists. Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 33(2) of the Act which deems all registered trade unions to be affiliated to the Central Labour Organisation which is named in the law (section 33(1)) has not been amended. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to ensure that workers have the right to form and join the union of their own choosing at all levels outside the trade union specifically mentioned in the law if they so wish.

(b)  Organizing in export processing zones

Noting that section 4(e) of the Export Processing Zones Decree, 1992, sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the Export Processing Zones Authority to include the resolution of disputes between "employers and employees" (rather than workers’ organizations or unions) in the zone and that, under section 13(1), no person shall enter, remain in or reside in a zone without the prior permission of the Authority, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that zone workers may form and join the organization of their own choosing in the furtherance and defence of their occupational interests and, in particular, the measures taken to ensure that representatives of workers’ organizations may have reasonable access to the zones so that trade unions can communicate with workers in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization.

(c)  Further obstacles

The Committee recalls that its previous comments also concerned the following discrepancies in the Trade Unions Act in respect of the right for workers to form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization:

-  section 3(1) of the Act sets the excessively high requirement of 50 workers to form a trade union;

-  section 11 of the Act denies the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian External Telecommunications.

It once again requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the Trade Unions Act in respect of these matters in order to ensure full compliance with Article 2.

Article 3 (the right to elect officers in full freedom, to
organize their administration and activities and to
formulate programmes without government interference)

(a)  The right to strike

1.  Export processing zones.  The Committee notes that section 18(5) of the Export Processing Zones Act provides that there shall be no strikes or lockouts for a period of ten years following the commencement of operations within a zone. The Committee recalls that such a prohibition is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 169) and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, including those in export processing zones, have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and that such organizations have the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities.

2.  Conditional check-off facilities.  The Committee notes that section 5 of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 26 of 1996 which makes check-off payments to unions conditional upon the inclusion of "no-strike" clauses in collective agreements has not yet been repealed but has only been amended by Decree No. 1 to refer also to "no lock-out" clauses. The Committee considers that such a legislative requirement hinders the right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes and activities without interference by the public authorities. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to allow workers’ and employers’ organizations to bargain freely on such an issue.

(b)  Further obstacles

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the need to amend:

-  the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration (other than in cases of essential services in the strict sense of the term and for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis) under penalty of a fine or six months’ imprisonment for any person failing to comply with a final award issued by the National Industrial Court (section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976 amending the Trade Disputes Act);

-  the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time (sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Unions Act) to ensure that such a power is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend these provisions in order to ensure full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Article 4 (cancellation of registration by administrative authority)

The Committee notes the amendment made in 1996 to section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act giving broad authority to the Minister to revoke the certification of any registered trade union due to "overriding public interest". Recalling that organizations of workers and employers should not be liable to dissolution by administrative authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel registration so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with this Article of the Convention.

Articles 5 and 6 (international affiliation)

The Committee notes, that the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) (Amendment) Decree No. 2 of 1999 still provides that an application for affiliation must be submitted with details to the Minister for approval. While noting that a refusal of an application for international affiliation can be appealed to the National Industrial Court, the Committee considers that a provision which requires ministerial approval for international affiliation on the basis of a detailed application infringes on the rights of workers’ organizations to affiliate with international workers’ organizations freely. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend this Decree so that workers’ organizations may affiliate with the international workers’ organization of their own choosing free from interference by the public authorities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report. It also takes note of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1793 and 1935 (see 315th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 274th Session, March 1999).

With reference to its previous comments concerning non-interference of government officials in trade union affairs, the Committee notes with satisfaction the information provided by the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association to the effect that the workers of the Nigerian Labour Congress have freely elected their representatives in a Congress which took place on 27 January 1999 (see 315th Report, paragraph 19).

The Committee further notes with satisfaction the adoption in 1999 of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decrees Nos. 1 and 2 which have modified previous amendments to the Trade Unions Act along the lines previously indicated by the Committee and in particular concerning: the restructuring of industrial unions; the redefinition of the term "member of a trade union" to include persons either elected or appointed by a trade union to represent workers' interests; restoring appeals to appropriate courts in respect of registrations cancelled by administrative authority; and the repeal of the sanction of five years' imprisonment for unauthorized international affiliations.

Noting however that a certain number of discrepancies between the legislation and the provisions of the Convention still remain, the Committee wishes further information from the Government on the points below.

Article 2 of the Convention (the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing)

(a) Legislatively imposed trade union monopoly and the restructuring of industrial unions under Decree No. 4 of 1996

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 1 of 1999 which deletes all restricting references to "twenty-nine" unions in the Trade Unions Act as previously amended and adds to the list in the schedule to the Act a reference to "any other workers' trade union registered under this Act". The Committee continues to note however that under section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where a trade union already exists. Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 33(2) of the Act which deems all registered trade unions to be affiliated to the Central Labour Organisation which is named in the law (section 33(1)) has not been amended. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to ensure that workers have the right to form and join the union of their own choosing at all levels outside the trade union specifically mentioned in the law if they so wish.

(b) Organizing in export processing zones

Noting that section 4(e) of the Export Processing Zones Decree, 1992, sets forth the functions and responsibilities of the Export Processing Zones Authority to include the resolution of disputes between "employers and employees" (rather than workers' organizations or unions) in the zone and that, under section 13(1), no person shall enter, remain in or reside in a zone without the prior permission of the Authority, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that zone workers may form and join the organization of their own choosing in the furtherance and defence of their occupational interests and, in particular, the measures taken to ensure that representatives of workers' organizations may have reasonable access to the zones so that trade unions can communicate with workers in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization.

(c) Further obstacles

The Committee recalls that its previous comments also concerned the following discrepancies in the Trade Unions Act in respect of the right for workers to form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization:

-- section 3(1) of the Act sets the excessively high requirement of 50 workers to form a trade union;

-- section 11 of the Act denies the right to organize to employees in the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian External Telecommunications.

It once again requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the Trade Unions Act in respect of these matters in order to ensure full compliance with Article 2.

Article 3 (the right to elect officers in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without government interference)

(a) The right to strike

1. Export processing zones. The Committee notes that section 18(5) of the Export Processing Zones Act provides that there shall be no strikes or lockouts for a period of ten years following the commencement of operations within a zone. The Committee recalls that such a prohibition is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 169) and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, including those in export processing zones, have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and that such organizations have the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities.

2. Conditional check-off facilities. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 26 of 1996 which makes check-off payments to unions conditional upon the inclusion of "no-strike" clauses in collective agreements has not yet been repealed but has only been amended by Decree No. 1 to refer also to "no lock-out" clauses. The Committee considers that such a legislative requirement hinders the right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes and activities without interference by the public authorities. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to allow workers' and employers' organizations to bargain freely on such an issue.

(b) Further obstacles

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the need to amend:

-- the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration (other than in cases of essential services in the strict sense of the term and for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of acute national crisis) under penalty of a fine or six months' imprisonment for any person failing to comply with a final award issued by the National Industrial Court (section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976 amending the Trade Disputes Act);

-- the broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the union accounts at any time (sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Unions Act) to ensure that such a power is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, or in order to investigate a complaint.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend these provisions in order to ensure full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Article 4 (cancellation of registration by administrative authority)

While noting with interest the amendment introduced by Decree No. 1 of 1999 which restores the possibility of appealing administrative decisions to cancel registrations to the appropriate courts, the Committee continues to note that the amendment made in 1996 to section 7(9) of the Trade Unions Act giving broad authority to the Minister to revoke the certification of any registered trade union due to "overriding public interest" has been maintained. Recalling that organizations of workers and employers should not be liable to dissolution by administrative authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Act by repealing the broad authority of the Minister to cancel registration so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with this Article of the Convention.

Articles 5 and 6 (international affiliation)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) (Amendment) Decree No. 2 of 1999 which amends Decree No. 29 of 1996 by providing generally that any trade union may affiliate with any international labour organization or trade secretariat in accordance with the Decree and repeals the provision of the earlier Decree which had provided for sanctions of up to five years' imprisonment for any unapproved international affiliation. The Committee does note, however, that Decree No. 2 of 1999 still provides that an application for affiliation must be submitted with details to the Minister for approval. While noting that a refusal of an application for affiliation can be appealed to the National Industrial Court, the Committee considers that a provision which requires ministerial approval for international affiliation on the basis of a detailed application infringes on the rights of workers' organizations to affiliate with international workers' organizations freely. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend this Decree so that workers' organizations may affiliate with the international workers' organization of their own choosing free from interference by the public authorities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that a Commission of Inquiry was appointed at the 272nd Session of the Governing Body (June 1998) in respect of the non-observance by Nigeria of this Convention, as well as of Convention No. 98. It notes, however, that at the same session, the Governing Body decided that the commencement of the work of the Commission should be delayed for 60 days in order to allow a direct contacts mission to take place. The Committee notes that this direct contacts mission took place from 17 to 21 August 1998 and that the Governing Body at its 273rd Session (November 1998) took note of the report of the mission and decided to suspend the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee notes that according to the decision of the Governing Body, the report of the direct contacts mission has been transmitted to this Committee for examination, and it takes due note of this report.

I. 1. The right of workers' organizations to elect officers in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without government interference (Article 3 of the Convention).

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of August 1994 which dissolved the Executive Councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) were repealed on 11 August 1998 (with a commencement date of 20 July) by Repeal Decrees Nos. 13 and 14 respectively.

The Committee further notes a document entitled Resolutions and Communique Issued at the End of the Consultative Meeting between the Federal Government and the Representatives of the 29 Industrial Unions affiliated to the NLC held on 2 September 1998. The Committee notes that this meeting, "conscious of the urgent need to avoid a vacuum in the affairs of the Nigerian Labour Congress as a result of the repeal of Decree No. 9, and the urgent need to install democratically elected leaders of Congress", resolved to set up a presidium of six members drawn from the industrial unions and facilitated by the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity to conduct its affairs. Furthermore, it notes that this meeting agreed that the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity should appoint a convenor to assist the Caretaker Committee and that the previous government-appointed sole administrator should hand over to this Caretaker Committee within two weeks. Finally, it notes that the meeting "reaffirmed the commitment of the 29 industrial unions to evolve a NLC that would be democratic and independent and urged the Federal Government to remove all obstacles towards achieving trade unions' independence and freedom".

The Committee notes with interest that it would appear that the government-appointed sole administrator is no longer managing the affairs of the NLC. Noting however that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity is presently acting as a facilitator to the presidium set up to conduct the NLC's affairs and that the Ministry has been requested to appoint a convenor to assist the Caretaker Committee, the Committee would like to recall the consideration set forth in its 1952 Resolution that a stable, free and independent trade union movement is an essential condition for good industrial relations and should contribute to the improvements of social conditions generally. It also recalls that Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers' organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report any developments which have occurred in respect of the election of NLC officers to take over from the Caretaker Committee and the manner in which it is ensured that there is no interference from the Government in the functioning of the NLC.

2. The right to organize for academic staff unions and associations (Article 2).

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the Trade Disputes (Essential Services Deregulation, Proscription and Prohibition from Participation in Trade Union Activities) Decree No. 24 and the Trade Disputes (Essential Services) (Proscription) Order 1996 of 21 August 1996 which proscribed and prohibited the participation in any trade union activities of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), the Academic Staff Union of Universities and the Senior Staff Association of Universities, Teaching Hospital, Research Institutes and Associated Institutions and dissolved the National Executive Council and the Branch Executive Councils operating within any university in Nigeria were repealed on 11 August 1998 (with a commencement date of 20 July) by Repeal Decree No. 12.

II. 1. The right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization (Article 2).

(a) The restructuring of industrial unions: Decree No. 4 of 1996. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the restructuring of the previous 41 registered industrial unions into 29 trade unions affiliated to the Central Labour Organisation (named in the law as the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC)) through the promulgation of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 5 January 1996. It had observed that this Decree provided for the establishment of a determined number of trade unions for each occupational category according to a pre-established list further confirming the system of trade union monopoly established in section 33 of the Trade Unions Act of 1973, as amended. It had recalled that, under Article 2 of the Convention, workers and employers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. Noting from the direct contacts mission report that the Government has expressed the willingness to re-examine the whole trade union question in the country, including through revisiting Decree No. 4, in order to promote the observance of this Convention, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to repeal this Decree and to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to ensure full compliance with Article 2 of the Convention.

(b) Restrictions on the right to organize by the Trade Unions Act, as amended. In its previous comments, the Committee had pointed out that there were a number of discrepancies in the Trade Unions Act, as amended, in respect of the right for workers to form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee recalls the need to amend section 3(1) and (2) which sets the excessively high requirement of 50 workers to form a trade union and grants the Minister excessive control over the registration of trade unions. It further recalls the need to amend section 11 which denies the right to organize to certain categories of employees in the public service, such as the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Prison Services, the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian External Telecommunications, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the Trade Unions Act in respect of these matters in order to ensure full compliance with Article 2.

2. The right to elect officers in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate programmes without government interference (Article 3).

(a) Conditions of eligibility. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the need to amend sections 7 and 8 of the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Decree No. 26 of 1996 which require officers of a trade union to be card-carrying members who in turn must be engaged in the trade or industry which the union represents under punishment of a fine and/or five years' imprisonment. It recalls in this respect that provisions requiring members of trade unions to belong to the occupation concerned coupled with a requirement that the officers of the organization be chosen from among its members entails a serious risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers with the aim of depriving them of their trade union office and is not in conformity with the organization's right to elect representatives in full freedom as it prevents qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 117). Noting the willingness of the Government to review the whole trade union question, including Decree No. 26, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend these provisions either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

(b) The imposition of compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend the Trade Disputes Act, as amended, in so far as it permits the exercise of the right to strike to be restricted by means of imposing compulsory arbitration, under penalty of a fine or six months' imprisonment for any person failing to comply with a final award issued by the National Industrial Court. The Committee recalled the need to limit any possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration awards in respect of collective disputes to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report, any measures envisaged in this respect.

(c) The powers of the Registrar to supervise trade union accounts. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that sections 39 and 40 of the Trade Unions Act conferred on the Registrar broad powers to supervise the union accounts at any time and recalled the importance it placed on the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. The Committee observed that supervision should be limited to the submission by a trade union of periodic reports and that interference should only be permitted in the case of lodged complaints and on the condition that there be a right to appeal to the competent authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend these sections of the Trade Unions Act in order to ensure full conformity with the Convention in this regard.

3. Cancellation of registration by administrative authority (Article 4)

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that section 3 of the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Decree No. 26 further extended the Minister's control over trade union registration by providing that decisions to cancel registration may only be appealed to the Minister. The Committee noted this with particular concern in the light of further amendments made in this Decree which enabled the Minister, due to overriding public interest, to revoke the certificate of registration of any trade union specified in the Schedule to the Act (section 3) and under section 7, to revoke registration in the event that a non-card-carrying member assumes a functional role in any of the policy or decision-making organs.

Recalling that according to Article 4 of Convention No. 87, workers' and employers' organizations should not be liable to dissolution by administrative authority, the Committee requests the Government to amend Decree No. 26 by repealing the absolute authority of the Minister to cancel registration and by enabling workers and their organizations to appeal to the courts concerning any cancellation of registration.

4. International affiliation (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention)

In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the need to repeal the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) Decree No. 29 of 1996 which annulled the international affiliation of the Central Labour Organization and all registered trade unions with any international labour organization or trade secretariat other than the Organization of African Trade Union Unity, the Organization of Trade Unions for West Africa and any other international labour organization for which a specific application had been made and approval given by the Provisional Ruling Council. Under this Decree, any subsequent international affiliation is subject to prior approval and any contravention may be punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and the certificate of registration of the offending trade union shall be revoked. Recalling that Articles 5 and 6 provide that workers' organizations shall have the right to affiliate with the international organization of their own choosing, and noting from the direct contacts mission report the Government's indication that the matter of this Decree could also be addressed, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the legislation in order to ensure full conformity with these Articles of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 1997, the additional information provided by the Government to the Committee, the discussion which followed and the resulting special paragraph in the Conference Committee's report for continued failure to implement the Convention. The Committee further notes with deep regret from the examination of Case No. 1793 by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its 308th Report (approved by the Governing Body at its 270th Session (November 1997)), that the Government has not yet accepted the suggestion of a direct contacts mission. Finally, the Committee notes with regret that it has not received any report from the Government on the application of the Convention, despite the request made by the Conference Committee in this respect.

I. Article 2: The right to organize for academic staff unions and associations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with deep concern that the Trade Disputes (Essential Services Deregulation, Proscription and Prohibition from Participation in Trade Union Activities) Decree and the Trade Disputes (Essential Services) (Proscription) Order 1996 of 21 August 1996 proscribed and prohibited the participation in any trade union activities of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), the Academic Staff Union of Universities and the Senior Staff Association of Universities, Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutes and Associated Institutions and dissolved the National Executive Council and the Branch Executive Councils operating within any university in Nigeria in contravention of Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the above-mentioned Order was the result of the protracted closure of Nigerian universities for a period over six months and the refusal of the unions to settle the dispute which precipitated a national crisis contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.

While noting the Government's indication that trade union recognition has been restored to NASU by Decree No. 26 of 1996, it would appear that the Government is merely referring to the fact that NASU is included in the list of 29 restructured trade unions affiliated to the Central Labour Organization. The Committee is not however aware of any subsequent decree repealing the Proscription Order of 1996 which prohibited the trade union activities of three university unions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal this Order so as to guarantee the right to organize and to carry out trade union activities of the three above-mentioned unions.

II. Article 2: The right to establish and join the organization of one's own choosing and to be protected from administrative dissolution. As concerns the restructuring of the previous 41 registered industrial unions into 29 trade unions affiliated to the Central Labour Organization (named in the law as the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC)) through the promulgation of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 5 January 1996, the Committee notes the Government's emphasis on the fact that these measures were taken in response to a voluntary request by the NLC. Observing that this Decree provides for the establishment of a determined number of trade unions for each occupational category according to a pre-established list further confirming the system of trade union monopoly, the Committee recalls that the organization having made this request has been run by a government-appointed administrator since 1994. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention provides that workers and employers shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation in order to apply fully Article 2 of the Convention.

III. Article 3: Conditions of eligibility. As concerns the requirement that officers of a trade union be card-carrying members which in turn must be engaged in the trade or industry which the union represents under punishment of a fine and/or five years' imprisonment (sections 7 and 8 of Decree No. 26), the Committee would recall that provisions requiring members of trade unions to belong to the occupation concerned coupled with a requirement that the officers of the organization be chosen from among its members entails a serious risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers in order to deprive them of their trade union office and is not in conformity with the organization's right to elect representatives in full freedom as it prevents qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association, paragraph 117). The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend these provisions either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

IV. Article 4: Dissolution or suspension by administrative authorities. The Committee cannot but note with the deepest concern that Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of August 1994 dissolving the executive councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) respectively have not been repealed and that these unions, after over three years now, are still being run by a single administrator appointed by the Government. It urges the Government to take the necessary measures immediately to bring the law and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, particularly by repealing the above-mentioned Decrees, and to re-establish for workers' and employers' organizations the right to organize and the right to elect representatives in full freedom, without interference by the public authorities.

As concerns section 8 of Decree No. 4 of 1996 which provides that "no question as to the validity of any act taken by any person or authority in pursuance of this Act shall be entertained by any court of law or tribunal in Nigeria", the Committee notes the Government's indication that, within the context of the Nigerian Constitution and the on-going transition to the civil rule programme of the federal Government, the provisions of this Decree arise from the need to create an enabling environment for public safety, order and morality that would engender resilient and lasting industrial peace and harmony in the country and assist the successful prosecution of the on-going democratization programme in Nigeria. The Committee further notes that section 3 of Decree No. 26 of 16 October 1996 also amends the Trade Unions Act so as to make any decisions to cancel registration only appealable to the Minister. This gives rise to particular concern when read with the further amendments in this Decree which provide that the Minister may, due to overriding public interest, revoke the certificate of registration of any trade union specified in the Schedule to the Act (section 3) and under section 7, may revoke registration in the event that a non-card-carrying member assumes a functional role in any of the policy or decision-making organs.

Recalling that according to Article 4 of the Convention, workers and employers should not be liable to dissolution by administrative authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend both Decrees Nos. 4 and 26 by repealing the powers of the Minister to dissolve organizations and by enabling workers and their organizations to appeal to the courts concerning any cancellation or denial of registration.

Regarding the omission of 25 previously registered and recognized trade unions of senior staff and ten employers' associations from the list of registered organizations, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the list established in the Third Schedule of Decree No. 4 refers only to the organizations affiliated to the NLC and does not in any way affect the registration of the senior staff associations or of the employers' associations.

V. Article 5: International affiliation. The Committee notes with regret the adoption of the Trade Unions (International Affiliation) Decree No. 29 of 1996 which, similar to the previous Decree of 1989, annuls the international affiliation of the Central Labour Organization and all registered trade unions with any international labour organization or trade secretariat other than the Organization of African Trade Union Unity, the Organization of Trade Unions for West Africa and any other international labour organization for which a specific application has been made and approval given by the Provisional Ruling Council. Any subsequent international affiliation is therefore subject to prior approval. Furthermore, any contravention of this Decree may be punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and the certificate of registration of the offending trade union shall be revoked. The Committee recalls in this regard that international solidarity of workers and employers requires that their national federations and confederations be able to group together and act freely at the international level; a right provided for under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 198). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that workers' organizations have the right to affiliate with the international organization of their own choosing without prior authorization.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference Committee at its 86th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 1996, the discussion which followed and the resulting special paragraph in the Conference Committee's report.

With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes that there has been no progress made in bringing the national legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention, despite the comments which it has been making for several years. It notes, in particular, the fact that Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of August 1994 dissolving the executive councils of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) respectively have not been repealed and that these unions are still being run by a single administrator appointed by the Government.

The Committee also notes that a number of Decrees have been adopted recently which further violate the provisions of this Convention. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Trade Disputes (Essential Services Deregulation, Proscription and Prohibition from Participation in Trade Union Activities) Decree and the Trade Disputes (Essential Services) (Proscription) Order 1996 of 21 August 1996 proscribe and prohibit the participation in any trade union activities of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions, the Academic Staff Union of Universities and the Senior Staff Association of Universities, Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutes and Associated Institutions and dissolve the National Executive Council and the Branch Executive Councils operating within any university in Nigeria in contravention of Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention.

Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government has once again restructured the previous 41 registered industrial unions into 29 trade unions affiliated to the Central Labour Organisation (named in the law as the NLC) through the promulgation of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 5 January 1996. This Decree provides for the establishment of a determined number of trade unions for each occupational category according to a pre-established list further confirming the system of trade union monopoly. The Committee had been able to note in its previous comments that a similar restructuring by Government Notice in 1993 had been repealed, following the Committee's request to do so. Now Decree No. 4 goes even further in its restriction of the right to organize by providing under section 8 that "no question as to the validity of any act taken by any person or authority in pursuance of this Act shall be entertained by any court of law or tribunal in Nigeria". Noting further that Decree No. 4 also omits from the list of registered organizations 25 previously registered and recognized trade unions of senior staff and ten employers' associations, the Committee considers that the adoption of this Decree violates the right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

The Committee notes with deep regret the serious deterioration in the trade union situation in Nigeria. It urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the law and practice into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, particularly by repealing the above-mentioned Decrees, and to re-establish the right to organize and the right to elect representatives in full freedom, without interference by the public authorities, for workers' and employers' organizations.

[The Government is requested to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 85th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the declaration of the Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 1995, the discussion which followed and the resulting special paragraph in the Conference Committee's report. The Committee also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1793 (300th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 264th Session (November 1995)). It recalls that the serious and fundamental discrepancies between national legislation and practice and the Convention concern the following points:

(a) the administrative dissolution of the executive council of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) (Decree No. 9 of 18 August 1994);

(b) the administrative dissolution of the executive councils of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) (Decree No. 10 of 18 August 1994), the members of the executive councils of NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN having thus been administratively revoked and replaced by government-appointed administrators;

(c) the single trade union system established by law under which any registered trade union is compulsorily affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress, the only central organization which is designated by name; the establishment of a single trade union for each category of workers in accordance with a pre-established list; and the excessively high minimum number of 50 workers to form a trade union (section 3(1) and (2) and section 33(1) and (2) of the Trade Unions Act of 1973 as modified by Decrees Nos. 22 of 1978 and 17 of 1986);

(d) broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions at any time (sections 42 and 43 of the Trade Unions Act);

(e) non-recognition of the right to organize of certain categories of workers (employees in the customs service, in mints, in the Central Bank of Nigeria and in the External Telecommunications Company) (section 11 of the Trade Unions Act);

(f) the possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term (section 7 of Decree No. 7 of 1976 on industrial disputes);

(g) the restructuring of industrial/workers unions imposed by Government Notice No. 44 of 31 August 1993 which resulted in the restructuring of 41 previously registered industrial unions into 29 workers' unions in accordance with a pre-established list, thus confirming the trade union monopoly imposed by law.

The Committee takes note of the fact that the Government, acting upon the Committee's previous comments, has repealed Government Notice No. 44 of 31 August 1993 (published in the Official Gazette No. 24, Vol. 80) which imposed the restructuring of industrial/workers unions by issuing Government Notice No. 2 of 8 February 1995 published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 82. The Committee nevertheless observes the serious discrepancies which remain between the legislation and practice and the provisions of the Convention.

The administrative dissolution of the executive councils of the NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN contrary to Article 4 of the Convention

The Committee notes that the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1995 had indicated that Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 were of a transitionary character and that they would be repealed as soon as the committees formed by the unions had organized the elections of union delegates to the national Conference. In its report, the Government adds that elections were held at the branch and unit levels of NUPENG and PENGASSAN over the last four months and that the sole administrators responsible for the management of the unions held 650 elections at the unit level and 195 at the branch level, that is 845 elections in all.

The Committee notes with regret the Government's indication that the trade union elections have been organized by the sole administrators responsible for the management of the unions. It recalls that, in ratifying this Convention, the Government has undertaken to guarantee that workers' organizations elect their representatives in full freedom without interference by the public authority (Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention).

More generally, the Committee notes with concern that the Committee on Freedom of Association has referred in its 300th Report of November 1995 to the fact that the government-appointed sole administrator is still managing the NLC. The unions have demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the loss of their independence due, in particular, to the attempts made by the authorities to move the NLC headquarters from Lagos to Abuja and to the delay in holding the union elections.

The Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association in its recommendations, expresses the firm hope that the Government will: immediately repeal Decrees Nos. 9 and 10; allow independently elected officials to exercise their trade union functions once again; restore to the executive councils of the NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN access to their respective trade union premises and bank accounts and; withdraw suspension of the check-off facilities upon the request of individual workers and in respect of the unions which they have freely designated.

The powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions contrary to Article 3(1) and (2)

The Government representative indicated that the Registrar does not have any powers in this regard. In its report, the Government points out that a law concerning check-off facilities was adopted in 1990 (the Labour Act (Cap. 198) of 1990). According to the Government, this law confers a moral and statutory obligation on the Government to ensure that the workers' money thus deducted and turned over to the unions is properly used in the interest of the union members. The audited accounts are sent to the Registrar for information and scrutiny. Nevertheless, the unions themselves name the accountants without interference from the Registrar.

The Committee notes that sections 39 and 40 of the Labour Act continue to confer on the Registrar the power to supervise the union accounts at any time. The Committee recalls the importance it places on the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. In the Committee's opinion, supervision should be limited to the submission of periodic reports and interference should only be permitted in the case of complaints and on the condition that there is a right to appeal to the competent judicial authority.

Trade union monopoly established by law contrary to Article 2

The Government indicates in its report that the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act of Nigeria, amended in 1990, Cap. 437, recognizes 70 trade unions. Moreover, section 5 of the Act provides that any group of workers who form themselves into a union in satisfaction with this provision can be registered as a trade union. The Government adds that 15 unions have been registered between 1978 and 1994, thus bringing a total of 85 unions currently registered. It concedes that 41 unions are affiliated to the NLC but, according to the Government, this does not mean that the 44 other unions outside the NLC are not recognized.

The Committee has already noted that, under the Act, senior staff unions are not required to be affiliated to the NLC. None the less, the Act continues to impose affiliation to the NLC for the 41 trade unions designated by name on the pre-established list. The Committee once again requests the Government to amend its legislation to ensure for all workers without distinction whatsoever the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing including outside the established trade union structure if they so wish.

Taking note of the latest information and comments contained in the Government's report, the Committee observes that the Subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council was assigned the responsibility of reviewing and updating the Trade Unions Act, the Trade Disputes Act, the Trade Disputes Essential Services Act, the Labour Act, the Wages Boards and Industrial Councils Act, the Workman's Compensation Act and the Factories Act. The Government adds that the National Labour Advisory Council will study the Subcommittee's report, including the proposed amendments concerning the discrepancies relative to the Convention, and that it will make appropriate recommendations for the promulgation of new labour legislation.

The Committee firmly hopes that, in the light of the above indications, the Government will rapidly take the necessary measures with respect to all the points raised to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention which it has freely ratified.

[The Government is requested to supply full particulars to the Conference Committee at its 83rd Session.)]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report, as well as the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1793 (295th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 261st Session (November 1994)). It recalls that the fundamental discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention concern the following points:

-- the single trade union system established by law under which any registered trade union is compulsorily affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress, the only central organization, which is designated by name; the establishment of a single trade union for each category of workers in accordance with a pre-established list; too high a number of members for the establishment of a trade union;

-- non-recognition of the right to organize of certain categories of workers (employees in the customs service, in mints, in the Central Bank of Nigeria and in the External Telecommunications Company);

-- broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions at any time;

-- the possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that the subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council on the Review of Labour Laws is about to conclude its work and that it will most probably submit its recommendations to the Government before the end of 1994. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take action on the observations that it has been making for several years with a view to bringing its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes with concern, moreover, that the Government has approved the restructuring of the previous 41 registered industrial unions into 29 workers' unions through the promulgation of Government Gazette No. 24, Vol. 80, of 31 August 1993 entitled Revised Structure of Industrial/Workers' Unions. The Committee observes from the Preamble to this Gazette that the Government approved this restructuring exercise upon the recommendations of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and the tripartite National Labour Advisory Council in an effort to remove observed anomalies in the structure of trade unions in the country which had been responsible for numerous inter-union disputes and litigation. While noting these reasons, the Committee would point out that this Gazette provides for the establishment of a determined number of trade unions for each occupational category according to a pre-established list thereby confirming the system of trade union monopoly.

The Committee recalls in this context that trade union unity directly or indirectly imposed by law runs counter to the Convention. Furthermore, the law should not institutionalize a factual monopoly; even in a situation where at some point all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should still remain free to choose to set up unions outside the established structures should they so wish (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 96).

The Committee requests the Government to repeal the text published in the Government Gazette on the Revised Structure of Industrial/Workers' Unions.

Finally, the Committee notes from the recent conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1793 that by virtue of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) (Dissolution of National Executive) Decree No. 9 and the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) (Dissolution of Executive Councils) Decree No. 10, both of 18 August 1994, the national executive council members of the NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN were removed from office by government authorities and replaced by government-appointed administrators. The Committee considers that such measures constitute a clear violation of the right of organizations to elect freely their representatives expressed in Article 3 of the Convention. Like the Committee on Freedom of Association, it would urge the Government to repeal Decrees Nos. 9 and 10.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken to bring the whole of its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 82nd Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and recalls that, for several years, the fundamental discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention concerned the following points:

- the single trade union system established by law under which any registered trade union is compulsorily affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress, the only central organization, which is designated by name; the establishment of a single trade union for each category of workers in accordance with a pre-established list; too high a number of members for the establishment of a trade union;

- non-recognition of the right to organize of certain categories of workers (employees in the customs service, in mints, in the Central Bank of Nigeria and in the External Telecommunications Company);

- broad powers of the Registrar to supervize the accounts of trade unions at any time;

- the possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee observes that in its report, the Government states that the Nigeria Labour Congress has, of its own volition, set up a number of committees to restructure its affiliate industrial unions. The Government indicates, however, that the subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council responsible for the review of the labour laws has not yet concluded its work. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take action on the observations that it has been making for several years with a view to establishing a situation where trade union pluralism would be possible if the workers so wish, recognizing the right to organize of certain categories of employees, restricting the broad powers of the Registrar and limiting restrictions on the right to strike to essential services in the strict sense of the term.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the information supplied by a Government representative at the Conference Committee in 1991.

1. Article 5 of the Convention (affiliation to international workers' and employers' organisations). With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that Decree No. 35 of 1989 prohibiting the international affiliation of trade unions has been repealed by Decree No. 32 of 1991.

2. Articles 2 and 3. The Committee recalls, however, that, for several years, the fundamental discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention concerned the following points:

- the single trade union system established by law under which any registered trade union is compulsorily affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress, the only central organisation, which is designated by name; the establishment of a single trade union for each category of workers in accordance with a pre-established list; too high a number of members for the establishment of a trade union;

- non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers (employees in the customs service, in mints, in the Central Bank of Nigeria and in the External Telecommunications Company);

- broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions at any time;

- the possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee observes that, in its latest report, the Government merely indicates that it notes the comments of the Committee and that the subcommittee of the National Labour Advisory Council responsible for the review of the labour laws has not yet concluded its work. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will examine very closely the observations that it has been making for several years in this respect, and urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the National Labour Advisory Council (a tripartite body responsible for examining the provisions of the labour legislation that are not in conformity with the Convention) is continuing its work and that its recommendations will be communicated to the ILO as soon as they have been submitted to, and approved by, the Government.

1. Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. With reference to its detailed observation of 1989, the Committee recalls that it has been pointing out for many years the numerous fundamental discrepancies between the national legislation and certain Articles of the Convention, namely:

- the single trade union system established by law under which any registered trade union is compulsorily affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress, the only central organisation, which is designated by name; the establishment of a single trade union for each category of workers in accordance with a pre-established list; and too high a number of members for the establishment of a trade union;

- non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers (employees in the customs service, in mints, in the Central Bank of Nigeria and in the external telecommunications company);

- broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions at any time;

- the possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will examine most attentively the observations that it has been making for many years in this respect, and urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 5. The Committee also notes that the Government has adopted Decree No. 35 of 1989, which: prohibits any international affiliation of trade unions, orders the central trade union, industrial unions and employers' associations to cease any existing international affiliation outside the prescriptions laid down by the Decree; and sets out a restrictive list of the international workers' and employers' organisations to which these bodies may affiliate. The Decree provides for very heavy sanctions for persons or organisations which contravene it, including: fines; being struck off the register of trade unions; and/or sentences of imprisonment of up to five years.

The Committee points out that organisations of workers and employers have the right to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers, to participate in their activities and to benefit from the advantages flowing from their affiliation (General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1983, paragraphs 250-251); this principle has been reaffirmed on several occasions by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee therefore invites the Government to repeal Decree No. 35 and to inform it in its next report of the measures that have been taken in this respect.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee has been informed of the adoption of the Trades Unions (Disqualification of Certain Persons)(Repeal) Decree 1987, under which persons who were prescribed from belonging to a trade union or from holding trade union office or participating in the management of any trade union under the 1977 legislation, can now do so. It requests the Government to supply the text of the Decree of 1987.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the Senate Committee on Labour, the purpose of which was to review all labour laws adopted during the previous military regime, has been replaced by the National Labour Advisory Committee. This new tripartite body is currently continuing the review of labour laws, and particularly the provisions of the Trade Unions Decree (No. 31) of 1973, as amended by Decrees Nos. 22 of 1978 and 17 of 1986, which were not in accordance with a number of Articles of the Convention.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that for several years its comments have been concerned with numerous discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention on a number of matters:

1. The single-trade-union system laid down by the legislation under section 33(1) and (2) of the Trade Unions Decree (No. 31), as amended in 1978 and 1986, under which any registered trade union is compulsorily affiliated to the Nigerian Labour Congress, the only central organisation, which is designated by name, and under section 3(2) of Decree No. 31 which provides for the establishment of one trade union for each category of workers in accordance with a pre-established list and which establishes a too high minimum number of members for the creation of a trade union (50 workers).

2. The non-recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers under section 11 of the above Decree, whereas only the armed forces and the police may be excluded from the provisions of the Convention.

3. The broad powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions at any time under sections 42 and 43 of the above Decree.

4. The possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to strike through the imposition of compulsory arbitration by virtue of various provisions of the Trade Disputes Decree (No. 7) of 1976 beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term.

Single-trade-union system

With regard to the single-trade-union system set forth by law, the Government explains once again that it responded to the desires of the workers to amalgamate the many trade unions and the four central organisations which had existed at the time when it gave its agreement to this amalgamation. It adds that in several establishments, particularly medical and educational establishments, in some industries and in the public sector there is more than one union per establishment.

While noting these statements, the Committee understands that this situation reflects the structure established through the legislation, which provides for trade union unity for each occupational category according to a pre-established list, and for the grouping of trade unions in federations in a pyramid structure and for a single central organisation designated by name.

The Committee emphasises that, although the objective of the Convention is not to express support either for trade union unity or for trade union pluralism, the principle set forth in Article 2 of the Convention implies that pluralism should be possible in all cases. It is for the workers themselves to join together in a single trade union structure if they consider that it is in their interests, but the law must not institutionalise this factual situation. Workers must be able to safeguard their freedom to set up, should they so wish in the future, unions outside the established trade union structure.

However, the Convention does not prevent a distinction being established between the most representative trade unions and other trade unions provided that this distinction is limited to the recognition of certain rights - principally in regard to representation for the purposes of collective bargaining, consultation by governments, or designating representatives to international organisations - to the most representative trade unions, determined according to objective and pre-established criteria. However, in all circumstances, minority organisations should be allowed to formulate their programmes, to have the right to make representations on behalf of their members and to represent them in the case of individual grievances (see paragraphs 136, 137 and 141 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining).

In view of the fact that the law imposes a single-trade-union system in favour of a single central organisation that is designated by name, contrary to the terms of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that it has taken to give effect to the Convention on this point.

Recognition of the right to organise of certain categories of workers

The Committee notes that employees in minting establishments and in the Central Bank of Nigeria may establish joint consultative committees, but still do not appear to have the right to organise themselves in trade unions or to join a trade union, by virtue of section 11 of the above Decree, whereas these employees are covered by the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that it has taken or that it envisages taking to give these workers the right to organise.

The right of trade union organisations to organise their administration

With regard to the wide powers of the Registrar to supervise the accounts of trade unions, the Government indicates once again that the powers of the Registrar are limited to enforcing probity and the capability of trade union officials to manage the funds of trade unions. In this connection, it emphasises that many petitions from trade union members have been made to the Government for it to intervene and prevent mismanagement of the funds.

The Committee points out that supervision of union finances should not normally go beyond a requirement for the organisation to submit periodic financial returns, and that investigatory measures should be restricted to cases of presumed irregularities that are apparent from annual financial statements or from complaints reported by members of the trade union (see paragraph 188 of the General Survey).

The Committee therefore requests the Government to re-examine sections 42 and 43 of Decree No. 31 in the light of its comments in order to guarantee trade union organisations the right to organise their administration without any interference by the public authorities which would restrict this right, in accordance with Article 3.

Recourse to compulsory arbitration

With regard to the restrictions on the right to strike which may result from the imposition of compulsory arbitration (Decree No. 7 of 1976), the Government states that the legislation in question is intended to bring to an end a dispute before it becomes uncontrollable and to prevent workers and their families, to whom no pay is given during strikes, being without resources for a long period. However, the Government repeats its previous statements to the effect that, in practice, workers have on various occasions called a strike without it taking action.

The Committee recalls that the exercise of the right to strike should be one of the means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and defence of their interests, and that restrictions or bans on strikes should be imposed only on public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national emergency for a limited period (in this connection see paragraphs 200, 214 and 226 of the General Survey).

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will examine attentively the conclusions and observations that it has set out above and requests it to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken to suppress the single-trade-union system that is imposed by law, to grant the right to organise to all workers other than those in the armed forces and the police, to limit the powers of the authorities concerning the supervision of trade union finances and to remove the excessive legal restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike.