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

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Nigeria (Ratification: 1960)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. 1. Public Order Act. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Public Order Act, Cap. 382, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, which contains provisions imposing certain restrictions on the organization of public assemblies, meetings and processions (sections 1–4), with such offences being punishable with imprisonment (sections 3 and 4(5)), which involves compulsory prison labour. The Committee recalled that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee further recalled that since opinions and views opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings and assemblies, restrictions affecting the organization of such meetings and assemblies may also fall within the scope of the Convention if such restrictions are enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that contraventions of the Public Order Act may be sanctioned with a fine, arrest and/or imprisonment. However, noting the Government’s reference to the Constitution of 1999, the Committee observes that in 2007, the Court of Appeal examined the constitutionality of the Public Order Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the relevant court decisions on the constitutionality of the Public Order Act, with its next report. In this regard, it requests the Government to indicate whether the Public Order Act is still in force, and if so, to provide information on the application of this Act in practice.

2. Legislation relating to the press and media. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Act, 2002, which imposes certain restrictions on journalists’ activities enforceable with penalties of imprisonment (section 19(1) and (5)(a)), which involves compulsory prison labour. It expressed the hope that measures would be taken to amend or repeal these provisions.

The Committee notes with regret an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the information in a report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of 5 January 2009, that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders expressed concern about freedom of expression in the country, in particular regarding the work of journalists (A/HRC/WG.6/4/NGA/2 paragraph 42). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the abovementioned provisions of the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Act, 2002, to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to provide copies of any relevant court decisions relating to the application of this Act in practice. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of criminal penalties for the offence of libel related to the activities of journalists, with its next report.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. 1. Labour Act. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 81(1)(b) and (c) of the Labour Act, 1974, a court may direct the fulfilment of a contract of employment and posting of security for the due performance of so much of the contract as remains unperformed, and a person failing to comply with such direction may be committed to prison. The Committee recalls that since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is not in conformity with the Convention. Noting an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal the abovementioned sections of the Labour Act, to ensure that penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, cannot be imposed for breaches of labour discipline.

2. Merchant Shipping Act. The Committee previously noted certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1990 (section 117(b), (c) and (e)) under which seafarers are liable to imprisonment for breaches of labour discipline, even in the absence of danger to the safety of the ship or to persons. The Committee expressed the firm hope that this Act would be amended to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a new Merchant Shipping Act was adopted in 2007, repealing the Merchant Shipping Act of 1990. In this regard, the Committee notes with serious concern that section 196(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act of 2007 provides for penalties of imprisonment for various breaches of labour discipline (in the absence of a danger to the safety of the ship or of persons), including wilfully disobeying any lawful command (section 196(2)(b)) or continuing to wilfully disobey such commands or neglecting duties (section 196(b)(c)). The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal the abovementioned sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, to ensure that penalties of imprisonment, involving compulsory labour, cannot be imposed for breaches of labour discipline where such breaches do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons.

Article 1(d). Punishment involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, pursuant to section 17(2)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 432, of 1990, participation in strikes may be punished with imprisonment. In this regard, the Government indicated that these provisions would be addressed in the Collective Labour Relations Bill.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Collective Labour Relations Bill is still pending in the National Assembly. The Committee also notes that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act of 2005, amending the Trade Unions Act, included additional penalties of imprisonment for the participation in strikes. Referring to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Collective Labour Relations Bill does not provide for penalties of imprisonment for the peaceful participation in a strike, in conformity with the Convention. It expresses the firm hope that this Bill will be adopted in the near future, and requests the Government to provide a copy, once adopted.