The relationship between Labour unions and the Nigerian Government has long been marked by tension and resistance. While Labour unions serve as legitimate machinery for protecting workers’ interests and promoting industrial peace, their influence has extended into the political and security spheres of the nation.
The legal foundation for union activities rests on the recognition of workers’ rights to freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution. However, the increasing tendency of Labour actions to disrupt essential services and national infrastructure raises an unsettling question about where legitimate industrial agitation ends and a threat to national security begins
Are Labour unions defenders of workers’ rights or threats to national security? Should a strike for fair wages be met with negotiation or suppression? These questions have haunted Nigeria’s labour landscape for decades. In earlier times, Labour unions were considered as the bedrock of democratic resistance and social justice. As time went on, the resistance characteristics of these unions created tensions with the Government causing them to be portrayed as enemies of stability. From colonial resistance to shutdowns in the modern day, the tension between organised labour and the state has never been far from the headlines. And today, the question is far from settled. The recent standoff between PENGASSAN and the Dangote Refinery has once again reignited debates around the role of unions in Nigeria’s economic and political stability. Are we witnessing the legitimate fight for labour rights or the rebranding of activism as a security threat?
A deeper understanding of these issues requires an examination of the historical roots of the relations between the Nigerian State and Labour Unions, the legal and political frameworks, and how recent events continue to blur the line between national interest and workers’ rights.
History of labour unions
The first formal trade union in Nigeria was formed in 1912 during the colonial era. It was called the Civil Service British Workers’ Union. Their activities initially were initially focused on labour conditions. They sought modest improvements in working conditions rather than engaging in collective bargaining or industrial action. However, the growing discontent among Nigerian workers over discriminatory wage structures and poor working conditions gradually fostered a stronger sense of solidarity and activism. This resulted in an anti-colonial agenda.
A significant turning point came with the enactment of the Trade Union Ordinance of 1938, which granted legal recognition to trade unions and introduced a framework for their registration and regulation. Following this milestone, several unions emerged. Examples include the Railway Workers’ Union (RWU), the Post and Telegraph Workers’ Union, and the Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT). The growing activities of these unions culminated in the General Strike of 1945. The strike was led by the charismatic labour leader Michael Imoudu. The strike lasted for 45 days and united over 40,000 workers in a coordinated demand for wage increases and cost of living allowances. Beyond its economic motives, the strike became a symbol of national unity and resistance against colonial economic injustice and laid the foundation for the political relevance of the labour movement in Nigeria. The post-strike period saw the emergence of umbrella organizations such as the Federation of Trade Unions of Nigeria (FTUN) in 1949
The labour movement in Nigeria continued to evolve after independence. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) was formally constituted in 1978 as the sole national federation of trade unions, merging four existing labour centres and restructuring over 1,000 unions into 42 industrial unions. This centralisation was partly engineered by the military government of the time.
The military era particularly marked periods of intense suppression and control over labour unions. The NLC’s opposition to the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) led to its dissolution in 1988 under General Ibrahim Babangida’s regime. Similarly, General Sani Abacha’s government dissolved the NLC and proscribed unions like the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) in 1994, following their agitation for the restoration of democracy. Labour leaders were frequently arrested and union meetings disrupted during these periods.
The struggle had during the military regime actually demands more than a cursory mention. Typical of military regimes, there were widespread suppression of the rights of workers and their leaders. In 1985, the Buhari military junta proscribed the Nigerian Medical Association and (NMA) and the National Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) for going on strike to demand increase in the salaries of doctors and improvement in public hospitals. Dr. Emmanuel Akpabio and Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, the NMA President and the 1st Vice-President, respectively, were detained in the Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Centre under the State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No 2 of 1984. The Alao Aka-Bashorun Chambers challenged their detention in the Lagos State High Court. It was when the case was pending that both detainees were released after they had been in prison custody for six months without trial. The leaders of the NARD fled the country when the junta wanted to arrest and detain them.
On October 1988, the senior staff union of the defunct National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) went on a three-day strike to protest the inadequate funding of the organisation, lack of safety measures and poor service conditions. Eleven of the striking workers were later arrested and accused of sabotage. They were charged with economic sabotage before a special military tribunal that sat in Jos, Plateau State. They pleaded not guilty to the monstrous charges, but were nonetheless convicted and sentenced them each to life imprisonment. The life sentence was later reduced by the military government to 10 years. As a result of local and international outrage against the criminalisation of the strike, the military president, General Ibrahim Babangida pardoned the convicts before the end of their prison terms.
Not even the Legal Profession was spared by the Military. In 1993, the military Government took over the Nigerian Bar Association and handed it over to the Body of Benchers via Decree No 21 of 1993. Unbowed, the Ikeja branch of the Nigerian Bar Association resolved unanimously to challenge the obnoxious Decree. The firm of Femi Falana & Co., owned by foremost human rights lawyer, activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, was instructed to handle the case on behalf of all members of the branch. The firm successfully dragged the military regime to Court and won a landmark judgment which culminated in the obnoxious Decree being declared illegal and unconstitutional. See the case of Williams v Akintunde (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt 381) 101.
The military, having been blooded by lawyers in Court, the Sani Abacha military junta promulgated the Legal Practitioners Amendment Decree No 21 of 1994 and thereby withdrew from the affairs of the NBA. It was the only case that a Decree was successfully challenged during the military rule.
With the return to democratic rule, some anti-union regulations were abolished in 1999. However, the government continued to seek ways to manage union power. The Trade Union (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted. The Act retained the NLC as a central labour union but also allowed other trade unions the freedom to federate and form umbrella unions. It also made union membership voluntary.
Legal framework
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of association. Section 40 provides that: “every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.”
This provision forms the constitutional foundation for trade unionism in Nigeria. However, the right is not absolute. Section 45 allows for restrictions on these rights in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health. It is also subject to limitations under other laws regulating labour relations and public order.
Trade Disputes Act 2004: This Act outlines the procedure for dispute resolution. It also defines what essential services are and places restrictions on strikes within these sectors.
Trade Union Act 1990 and Trade Union (Amendment) Act 2005: This Act governs the formation, registration, and operation of trade unions. The 2005 amendment made union membership voluntary and allowed for the formation of multiple central labour organizations. It also sets stringent conditions for unions to meet before calling a strike.
Concept of threat
The Nigerian government has frequently invoked the concept of national security to justify interventions in labour disputes, especially when industrial actions disrupt critical sectors. For example, strikes have long been a weapon used by labour unions to make their demands heard and met. However, strikes are often considered a tool that disrupts the flow of economic activities and ultimately a threat to national security.
Strikes in essential services such as healthcare, oil and gas, and education are often portrayed as direct threats to national security and economic stability. It is often met with fierce resistance. There are several examples of such situations in Nigeria.
In January 2012, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) launched a nationwide strike and mass protest against the government’s sudden removal of fuel subsidies. The move caused fuel prices to more than double overnight, triggering widespread outrage. The government framed the protests and strikes as a threat to national security and economic stability, especially as the shutdown paralysed major cities and halted economic activities across vital sectors.
In response, the federal government deployed military forces to the streets and banned protests in certain areas like Lagos. The Government warned labour leaders of dire consequences. The strike was eventually suspended after intense negotiations and pressure, although the unrest revealed deep tensions between labour rights and state control under the guise of national interest.
Similarly, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) threatened to embark on a nationwide strike over issues related to oil sector reforms, unfair labour practices, and concerns surrounding the implementation of the newly signed Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) in 2021. The union warned that failure to address its demands could lead to the shutdown of oil production and distribution. Given Nigeria’s heavy dependence on oil revenue, the government reacted swiftly. They labelled any disruption to oil supply as a national security risk. Emergency meetings were convened with top officials from the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The government urged PENGASSAN to shelve the planned strike, emphasising the potential economic and security fallout. Under immense pressure, the union opted for dialogue.
Recently, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), George Akume, described the shutdown of the national grid by the NLC and Trade Union Congress (TUC) during a recent strike in June this year as a treasonable felony and economic sabotage. In turn, the NLC condemned these remarks, asserting that their actions were legitimate and constitutionally protected. Critics often argue that such rhetoric is often hyperbolic. They argue that they are designed to deflect blame from government failures and delegitimize union causes.
A more recent example is the dispute between Dangote Refinery and PENGASSAN. PENGASSAN accused Dangote Refinery of sacking over 800 of its members for joining the union. The union also claimed these dismissals were because the workers exercised their constitutional and labour law right to join a trade union. PENGASSAN issued a directive to halt crude and gas supplies to Dangote refinery. This resulted in significant production deferments of approximately 283,000 barrels per day of oil and 1.7 billion standard cubic feet per day of gas and impacted over 1,200 MW of power generation. The NNPC quickly highlighted the significant disruptions of this to the energy sector. The government then intervened. The Vice President, Kashim Shettima criticized PENGASSAN for holding the nation to ransom over a minor labour dispute.
NLC condemned this stance and argued that such stance undermined workers’ rights and portrayed legitimate union activity as sabotage. The NLC asserted that the actions of Dangote Refinery violated workers’ rights.
Furthermore, the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority (NEPZA) issued a caution to PENGASSAN that strikes and lockouts are expressly prohibited within Free Trade Zones, where Dangote Refinery is located, for a period of ten years from the commencement of operations.
Impact on labour unions and the rights of workers
The consistent framing of union actions as threats to national security and the subsequent government reactions have had a profound impact on labour unions and the right of workers in Nigeria. Some of the impacts include:
i. Restrictions on Fundamental Rights: The essential services provisions and stringent strike conditions in labour laws restrict the fundamental rights of workers to freedom of expression and association. This could in turn make them susceptible to their employers’ whims.
ii. Harassment and Victimization: Labour leaders and members have faced arrests, detention, and other forms of harassment especially during military regimes.
iii. Erosion of Public Trust: The tendency of the government to resort to framing union actions as threats rather than addressing legitimate grievances can erode public trust in government institutions and exacerbate tensions.
iv. Influence on Policy Reform: Labour unions have historically been effective tools for advocating policy reforms and improving working conditions. Their industrial actions have often forced the government to reconsider or modify policies detrimental to the welfare of workers.
Essential services and restrictions on strikes
The Trade Disputes Act 2004 contains provisions related to essential services. It restricts the ability of workers in these sectors to engage in strikes that could endanger public health or safety. Section 41(1) makes it an offense for workers employed in any essential service to cease work without giving their employer at least 15 (fifteen) days’ notice of their intention to do so. The offense is committed if the cessation of work would deprive the community or any part of the community either wholly or to a substantial extent of that or any essential service.
Additionally, the Trade Disputes (Essential Services) Act in Section 1 empowers the President to proscribe any trade union or association whose members are employed in any essential service if the President is satisfied that such a union is or has been engaged in acts calculated to disrupt the economy or acts calculated to obstruct or disrupt the smooth running of any essential service. Once proscribed, the union ceases to exist. According to the Trade Unions Act, essential services include water supply, electricity, telecommunications, health services etc.
The Court has also made pronouncements in some cases as to whether certain services are essential services. In ENUGU STATE GOVERNMENT V. NIGERIA UNION OF TEACHERS (NUT) SUIT NO.: NICN/EN/01/2022, the National Industrial Court declared that teachers in Enugu State public primary schools are not in essential services and are therefore not prohibited from striking. Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe held that the adverse effects of strikes in the education sector are futuristic and would not immediately portend danger of immediate extremity on public order, morality and safety. The court dismissed the case of the Government, which sought to restrain the teachers from striking, and ordered parties back to the negotiation table.
Recommendations
The relationship between Labour unions and national security in Nigeria is a delicate balance between the constitutional rights of workers to associate and embark on industrial action and the perceived need of the government to maintain public order and economic stability. Addressing this requires a careful approach that considers both the fundamental rights of workers and safeguarding the stability of the country. This can be achieved by fostering transparent communication channels between Labour unions, employers, and government agencies to ensure that concerns are identified early and addressed collaboratively rather than through confrontation.
The Government should be more proactive in addressing concerns of the unions rather than viewing their actions as national threats. Promptly attending to their concerns will prevent prolonged actions that can negatively impact the security and economy of the nation.
Also, Judicial Intervention should be sought promptly. Seeking court opinions and orders to restrain unions from embarking on or continuing strikes while also mandating the government to consider their requests is an effective way to address the issue. It will help in ensuring that the government’s actions to suspend or proscribe unions must be backed by concrete evidence of threats to public order and not mere allegations
In NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW) V. OYO STATE GOVERNMENT, SUIT NO: CA/IB/263/2022, the Court of Appeal overturned the 2019 suspension of the NURTW in Oyo State and declared the action of the Governor unlawful. The Governor had proscribed the activities of the union citing breaches of peace. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Oyo State Government failed to provide evidence of any breach of peace or public order that would justify the suspension of the activities of the union.
Conclusion
The relationship between Labour unions and the issue of national security is undeniably complex and demands careful management. While Labour unions are essential defenders of the rights of workers and social justice, it is equally vital to recognize and address potential security risks that could arise from unchecked activities or external influences.
The right of workers to unionize and embark on industrial action is not a privilege granted by the state, it is a cornerstone of democratic freedom and a vital mechanism for social and economic justice. To label such actions as threats to national security without clear and justified cause is not protection but repression.
Governments have a duty to safeguard the nation but that duty must not be wielded as a blunt instrument to silence dissent or weaken the collective voice of workers. Strikes and protests may disrupt the status quo but they are not inherently acts of subversion. They are often cries for fairness and accountability. What is needed is a balanced framework where national security is protected through lawful and transparent means and where workers can organise without fear of being branded as enemies of the state.
• Koleosho is a legal practitioner and corporate governance expert
