Prince Peters Adeyemi, the deputy president of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), is the general Secretary of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), and vice president of Public Services International (PSI) for Africa and Arab Countries, spoke with CHRISTIAN APPOLOS on the sidelines of the 114th International Labour Conference (ILC) in Geneva, Switzerland, on issues shaping the world of work, labour rights and the welfare of Nigerian workers. Excerpts:
The recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment on the right to strike has generated a significant debate globally. In Nigeria, governments and employers often seek court injunctions to stop industrial actions. What does the ruling mean for trade unions, particularly NASU and the wider labour movement?
You are aware that there has been a long-running battle involving governments, employers’ organisations and trade unions over the right to strike. For many of us in the labour movement, there has always been a deep concern that the moment you take away the right to strike from trade unions, you effectively kill the union itself. That is why the outcome of the ICJ’s position on this matter is encouraging, reassuring and extremely important for workers across the world.
People often interpret judgments differently depending on their interests. We have seen this repeatedly in Nigeria. Whenever a judgment is delivered, different parties immediately begin to interpret it in ways that suit their own purposes and agendas.
But the reality is that it would have been extremely dangerous for workers and trade unions if the ICJ had taken a different position, I do not subscribe to attempts to diminish the significance of the ruling by describing it as merely advisory. What matters is the substance of the judgment and the message it sends, the right to strike remains an essential instrument available to workers and their unions in the pursuit of justice, fairness and the protection of workers’ interests.
For the Nigerian labour movement, a contrary decision would have created enormous difficulties because we know from experience that governments often seek every available means to prevent industrial action. We have witnessed situations where employers or government institutions rush to the National Industrial Court in search of what Comrade Adams Oshiomhole once described as “black market injunctions” to stop strikes, we have seen this happen repeatedly over the years. Very recently, ASUU’s strike actions faced legal challenges. Several other unions have had similar experiences. Instead of engaging workers and addressing their concerns through dialogue and collective bargaining, the first reaction is often to seek court orders.
We saw this happen when unions in the Federal Capital Territory had disagreements with the FCT Administration. Injunctions were obtained, but they did not solve the underlying problem because workers were already determined to pursue their legitimate demands.
It is dangerous for any employer: whether government or private sector, to think that workers can simply be prevented from expressing their grievances. When people are denied legitimate channels through which they can ventilate their frustrations and seek justice, the consequences can become even more serious.
My position is simple. If governments and employers are sincere, they should engage trade unions. No trade union leader is insane. No union member is irrational. If there are genuine difficulties, come to the negotiating table. Present your facts, your figures and your documents. Let both sides sit down and discuss the issues honestly. But if employers choose instead to rely on injunctions and legal technicalities, they are merely postponing the problem rather than solving it. The right to strike is already embedded in international labour standards, including ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association. Governments voluntarily ratified these conventions and accepted the obligations that come with them. Trade unions have consistently relied on these standards in defending workers’ rights. The ICJ’s position simply reinforces what has always existed within international labour law.
There have been deliberate attempts in some quarters to render trade unions ineffective by weakening their most powerful instrument. Trade unions negotiate, consult and dialogue. They exhaust every available avenue before resorting to industrial action, a strike is usually the last option, not the first. To deny workers the right to strike would be like denying litigants access to the highest court after exhausting all lower courts. It would remove the final mechanism available for securing justice. That attempt has failed, and that is good for workers everywhere.
The message is clear: if employers do not want strikes, they should engage their workers. Workers create the wealth of companies and governments. They deserve respect, dialogue and fairness. Strikes occur largely because employers refuse to listen.
Beyond labour rights, the economic situation remains difficult for many Nigerians, despite government assurances that reforms are yielding results. As workers prepare for further wage negotiations, do you think politics controls the economy or the economy controls politics in Nigeria?
In Nigeria today, politics controls the economy. Whenever elections approach, money suddenly begins to circulate. Politicians who have accumulated enormous resources release funds into the system because they want to win elections. You see economic activity increase during election periods, but ordinary citizens benefit very little beyond temporary inducements.
The reality is that a relatively small group controls a significant portion of the nation’s wealth.
We hear government officials celebrating endorsements from international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.
We are told repeatedly that economic reforms are working and that the economy is improving, but the real question is whether ordinary Nigerians feel the impact, from the perspective of workers, pensioners and ordinary citizens, the answer is largely no, people are suffering. Consider the major expenses confronting Nigerians today.
Electricity is expensive. Even consumers classified in Band A frequently complain about inadequate power supply despite paying significantly higher tariffs. Fuel prices have risen dramatically. When this administration assumed office, petrol sold for around N185 per litre. Today, Nigerians are paying well above N1,000 per litre in many locations. The impact has been devastating. Many people have abandoned their vehicles because they can no longer afford to fuel them. Transportation is not a luxury.
In a country without an efficient and reliable public transportation system, mobility is a necessity. In countries with effective public transportation networks, citizens have affordable alternatives. Buses are comfortable, reliable, accessible and affordable. Nigeria does not yet offer that experience. Healthcare remains under pressure. The cost of medicines continues to rise. Families are struggling to pay hospital bills and meet basic healthcare needs. Food prices remain high. Housing costs continue to increase; under these conditions, it is difficult to convince workers that the economy is booming.
Economic success should not be measured solely by macroeconomic indicators or praise from international institutions. It should be measured by whether citizens can afford food, transportation, healthcare, housing and other necessities of life. That is the true test of economic performance
At the moment, many Nigerians are finding it increasingly difficult to meet those needs. That is the reality confronting workers across the country. And until workers and ordinary citizens begin to feel tangible improvements in their daily lives, claims of economic success will remain difficult for many people to accept.
Nigeria is facing a serious security crisis. Kidnappings, attacks on communities and assaults on educational institutions have become increasingly common. How concerned are you about the state of security in the country?
It is deeply unfortunate that we have reached a point where many Nigerians no longer feel safe. The first responsibility of any government is to guarantee the security and welfare of its citizens. When people cannot move freely, conduct their daily activities or feel protected in their communities that represent a serious indictment of the government.
For those of us in the education sector, the situation is especially painful. Criminals attack schools, abduct students and operate with alarming boldness. It is difficult to understand how hundreds of students can be taken from educational institutions and transported over long distances without interception. That should concern every Nigerian.
What is even more troubling is that there have been public statements from individuals claiming to know where some of these criminal groups operate. If such information exists, the obvious question is: what action has been taken? Today, insecurity remains one of the gravest challenges confronting Nigeria.
Many Nigerians now feel that leaving home in the morning and returning safely in the evening is a matter of luck. That is not how any society should function. The government must begin to think differently because the problem continues to grow while solutions appear inadequate. What was once concentrated in a few regions has spread across the country. Incidents of kidnapping and violent crime now occur even in states that were previously regarded as relatively secure. The president must personally take a more active interest in finding lasting solutions beyond routine security meetings and official briefings. The situation demands urgency, creativity and decisive action.
We must also consider whether political interests are contributing to the escalation of insecurity. Historically, election periods have sometimes witnessed attempts by certain actors to destabilise governments or create perceptions of failure. These possibilities should not be dismissed. They must be thoroughly investigated. Whatever the causes, insecurity has become one of the most serious threats facing our nation. It affects investment. It affects education. It affects agriculture. It affects productivity. It affects the well-being of workers and ordinary citizens. Urgent action is required.
Some Nigerians believe state police could help address the security challenge. Do you share that view?
The debate over state police has existed for many years. Personally, I have reservations, as many Nigerians do. However, we must acknowledge a reality: the current system has not produced the desired results. If you examine developed countries, community policing plays a major role in maintaining security. In the United States, for example, states have substantial policing structures operating alongside federal agencies.
The argument in favour of state policing is that local authorities often possess better knowledge of their communities and can respond more effectively to threats.
At the same time, the concern many people raise is that governors could misuse state police as instruments of political oppression. That concern is legitimate and cannot be ignored. Nigeria’s political history provides reasons for caution.
However, if strong monitoring mechanisms, accountability structures and legal safeguards are established, state policing may deserve serious consideration. At this stage, it is clear that something different must be done. The situation is urgent.
The boldness of criminal groups is becoming increasingly alarming. Their confidence appears to be growing. There was a time when threats were made against highly placed public officials and institutions. We should not wait until such threats become reality before taking decisive action. The kidnapping of prominent individuals and members of their families demonstrates the seriousness of the challenge. Nobody is immune.
Nobody is completely safe. This issue requires immediate and comprehensive attention from all levels of government.
