Electricity Workers: When Strike Is Terrorism

Miscarriage of Justice 

Definitely, majority of Nigerian workers have suffered a miscarriage of justice – their salaries and conditions of service are poor and inhumane – See Sections 17(3) & 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution). This has always been the main cause of the incessant strikes that we have experienced in Nigeria. ‘Strike’ according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is “an organised cessation or slowdown of work by employees to compel the employer to meet the employee’s demands”. Nigerian judicial officers are grossly underpaid, even though they have one of the busiest dockets in the world; the so-called minimum wage for Nigerian workers, N30,000 per month, is not a living wage in present-day Nigeria. Last week, in his contribution to our Cover, “ASUU Strike: Any End in Sight?”, Professor Eyitope Ogunbodede, immediate past Vice Chancellor of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife, stated that Nigerian University Lecturers are one of the poorest paid in the world. Looking at ASUU’s extensive list of complaints, they definitely have a reason to be disgruntled. We know that Doctors and Nurses are paid a pittance, as a result of which many of them have ‘checked out’ to Saudi Arabia, UK, Canada and other greener pastures. This regime of gross underpayment of the Nigerian worker affects practically every worker in the public sector, except politicians (National Assembly members, Special Assistants & Advisers etc). 

In Ojo v Anibire 2004 20 N.W.L.R. Part 882 Page 571 at 583 per Kalgo JSC, the Supreme Court held that “Miscarriage of justice simply means a failure of justice. What will constitute a miscarriage of justice varies from case to case, depending on the facts and circumstances…. It is enough, if what has happened is not justice according to the law”. It is obvious that the plight of the Nigerian worker is certainly unjustifiable, vis-à-vis the aforementioned  provisions of the Constitution, and the realities of life. In Gbadamosi v Dairo 2007 3 N.W.L.R. Part 1021 Page 282 at 306 per Niki Tobi JSC, the Apex Court held inter alia that: “Miscarriage of justice is done to the party alleging it. The burden of proof, is on the party alleging that the justice has been miscarried”. 

Proof Beyond a Shadow of Doubt

Proof is simply “the means or process of establishing the truth of what is asserted by one side, and denied by the other side of the dispute”. See the case of Sakati v Bako 2015 14 N.W.L.R. Part 1480 Page 531 at 561-562. Even though the issue of proof of insufficient wages is a civil one, workers have gone beyond discharging the burden of proof in civil cases, that is, on the balance of probabilities based upon the preponderance of evidence (see the case of T. Lawal Owosho & Ors v M.A. Dada 1984 7 S.C. Page 149 at 167-168 per Aniagolu JSC) to that of criminal cases, proving their case, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of doubt (proof beyond reasonable doubt, suffices in criminal cases)! See the case of Akalezi v The State 1993 2 N.W.L.R. Part 273 Page 1 at 13 per Ogwuegu JSC. Apart from the grievances that have been publicly enumerated in the pleadings of workers that proves their allegations of bad conditions of service beyond a shadow of doubt (over and above the highest burden of proof demanded by law), there are so many things that we can take judicial notice of, which also corroborate the fact that to workers’ wages cannot be considered to be living wages – the high and still rising costs of foodstuffs, transport and everything else. 

Successive governments (present company definitely included), have proven many times over that workers are not their priority, and that they don’t care so much about them. Therefore, it is easy to understand the frustration of workers’ unions, and their constraint to take drastic measures like going on prolonged strikes to drive home their points. But, have they really succeeded in driving home any point? For one, if Government cared, ASUU would not be on strike for six months and counting; and that is why Norrison Quakers, SAN, in his own submission last week, suggested that there should be a law that public office holders must have their children enrolled in public institutions in Nigeria.. He obviously believes that if they, or many of them at least (and not just the Minister of Labour, Dr Chris Ngige whose children attend local public universities) have a stake in local education, that is, their children are being educated locally, they will be more interested in keeping the standards of education high, and of course, be concerned about the grievances of ASUU. I was shocked when I heard an interviewee, a Lecturer I think, once state that kerosene stoves were used in their university’s laboratory instead of Bunsen burners! How low educational standards seem to have dropped.

Nigerian Strikes Only Hurt the People 

However, the truth is that, strikes only succeed in doing one thing – punishing Nigerians. I have heard some refer to ASUU’s prolonged strike, as blackmailing Government. I beg to disagree,  because I don’t think the Government has really felt much pressure as a result of the strike. If anything, Government has taken the ASUU Strike/Education “easy like Sunday morning”! If ASUU goes on strike for three years, the children of top government officials will still go to school – either outside Nigeria or to private universities. Government couldn’t really care less, that it is not fulfilling its Section 18 constitutional obligation to provide education up to tertiary level for Nigerians. Therefore, ASUU and other unions like NLC, NUPENG etc, need to take cognisance of this fact, and feel more empathy for the Nigerian people, mostly the less privileged, as they are the ones that their actions really hurt the most. 

As the country seems to be gradually grinding to a halt with strikes and threats of same, I won’t bother to go into the Trade Union Act (TUA) or Trade Disputes Act (TDA), as to whether these strikes or threats of same are in accordance with the law – whether there are cogent reasons behind the strikes, whether there have been attempts at negotiation/dispute resolution, and whether proper notices have been given to Government before embarking on same – see Sections 31(6)e) of the TUA; undoubtedly there are cogent reasons for the dissatisfaction of Nigerian workers. In any event, the right to strike as embodied in the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, ILO and other charters, is considered to be a fundamental right by many countries. 

Strikes Can be an Act of Terrorism 

By virtue of Section 2(4) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPA), the ASUU Strike does not qualify as an act of terrorism, because its outcomes do not result into acts/effects of terrorism. The threat of the Electricity workers to proceed on strike, however, is another matter entirely. I submit that the provision of electricity is an essential service (see Paragraph 2(a) First Schedule to Section 48 of the TDA); and Section 41(1) of the TDA prohibits essential services workers inter alia from not performing their work without giving 15 days notice (not outright prohibition) – this is probably the provision that the Nigerian Union of Electricity Employees (NUEE) wants to satisfy to avoid the sanctions therein for non-adherence, by postponing their strike for two weeks.

For instance, in Ontario, Canada, the Labour Relations Act has been abrogated or modified in the case of certain essential workers in the public sector, like the Police. In Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alberta), Chief Justice Dickson stated that the definition of essential services should not be overbroadened, and limited it to: “where interruption of service would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or involved persons essential to the maintenance and administration of the rule of law…..”. CJ Dickson however, asserted that the abrogation of the right to strike for essential workers may amount to a limitation on their freedom of association, collective bargaining etc; he therefore concluded that “….legislative prohibition of freedom to strike must be accompanied by a mechanism for dispute resolution by a third party”, for example, arbitration; that is, the right to strike must be replaced by an effective dispute resolution mechanism, in order to protect the workers. 

The sample that Nigerians were given last Wednesday by NUEE, who caused a nationwide blackout for about 14 hours with their strike (which has been postponed for another two weeks), not only threw the country into chaos, but caused a considerable amount of monetary losses to businesses across the country, losses which the NUEE cannot compensate Nigerians for. 

Aside from such a strike amounting to the sabotage of an already battered economy, it must be examined vis-à-vis the TPA. Section 2(1) of the TPA prohibits all acts of terrorism and financing of same. Section 2(3)(a)-(g) of the TPA defines the different types of terrorism, and the shutting down of the national grid to cause a nationwide blackout, fits the definitions of what constitutes terrorism in Section 2(3)(a),(b),(c),(d) & (e) of the TPA like a glove – because the NUEE Strike not only caused harm and damage to the country, it also affected businesses across the country; it definitely intimidated Nigerians, destabilised the country, and was an attempt to influence the Government by coercion.

Conclusion 

Going forward, I would therefore advise the NUEE leadership, to consider its position carefully and explore better dispute resolution options. There are already videos from last Wednesday’s shut down in circulation, showing members of NUEE switching off the grid. The NUEE should remember that by virtue of Sections 74 & 76 of the TPA, the Attorney-General of the Federation can institute criminal proceedings at the Federal High Court against its erring members. Those found guilty of offences bordering on acts of terrorism, face up to 20 years imprisonment upon conviction – see Sections 12 & 13 of the TPA. 

One of the conclusions of the Marxian Theory is that, eventually, there will be a revolution by the angry Proletariat, that is, the workers against the Bourgeoisie – in this case, it is against Government with these incessant strikes/protests. Sadly, the resultant effect of this Proletariat revolution in Nigeria, does not necessarily have the desired effect on Government, but rather, is an attack and infliction of heavy hardship on the people. As a matter of urgency, one can only  demand that Government take workers’ grievances seriously, address them and try to make life easier for the masses, failing which it is unlikely that there will be any peace or progress in the country, particularly as a result of the destabilisation caused by the incessant strikes.