|
Nigerians �ll
never accept bad policies - Fidelis
Edeh
In the first
part of this interview published yesterday, President of Nigeria Civil
Service Union and Vice-President of the Nigeria Labour Congress
(NLC),
Comrade Fidelis Edeh, spoke
on the new Labour Bill and
sees it as exercise in futility. In the concluding part of the interview,
he speaks on the factors, such as hunger, exploitation,
hardship, among others, which would make Ngerians to heap curses on their
leaders. He spoke with Chuks
Ehirim. Excerpts:
You
talked earlier about reforms, especially within the INEC, to make it
independent and transparent�.
Yes
What,
in concrete terms, are you labour leaders doing, to see such things
actualised? I am asking this question because by the benefit of hindsight,
you have become a victim of a dictatorial tendency in the polity. So what
are you people doing to ensure that by 2007, we would have a better,
sanitised polity?
That is
exactly where we believe the National Assembly has a greater role because
at the end of the day, it is about structures. Whatever we are doing
cannot translate into anything if what we are doing is not appreciated and
translated into law that will now guide the electoral process. We are for
electoral transparency, we are for due process, we are for the fact that
parties should be driven by ideology, we are for non-partisanship by the
government.
Yes, PDP
has been able to produce the government in powe,r but the government in
power is the government of Nigeria. That is what we are in for, that
partisanship must be removed after a party has been able to constitute
government. And removal should be translated in the performance of
critical organizations that are relevant to ensuring that there is
transparency, there is accountability and that there is ownership. Such
agencies as INEC, Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission, the Police
and the judiciary should be allowed to play their statutory roles, if not
you may have sabotaged all the component elements of democracy.
The
House of Representatives seems to have adopted a different approach in
examining the bill. The reps are going to have public hearing on it. How
do you see that?
I think the
process so far adopted by the House of Representatives is reflective and
derived from the fact that democracy must be for the people and should be
driven in the interest of the people. I think that is how it should be, to
prepare the people to make input. The role of the House of Reps is just to
collate.. So I think so far, that process is in order and it should be
acknowledged.
Still
on the bill, looking at the way it was passed by the Senate, there is this
talk that the area that has to do with the check-off due was approved in
order to emasculate the unions. How do you see this?
I also
don�t like discussing the issue of check-off because it has been a
calculated blackmail to give the impression that all labour leaders are
interested in is to collect check off. But again, if you look at the
circumstances that brought about the amalgamation and the emergence of the
NLC, it was to avoid critical institutions poised to protect the interest
of Nigeria and its people to be hijacked by other
interests.
So at the
end of the day, I don�t see anything wrong about workers who voluntarily
decided to contribute to an organisation they never denied being members.
But since government believes that check off is what they needed to be
able to undo the labour movement, we can only watch and see how it
translates.
But my
fear, given what already is happening in the political parties, is that if
the issue of check off is pushed to the extent that labour organisations
are made moribund and insolvent, mind you, nature abhors vacuum. Since
they are legitimate and legal organisations existing, those who may want
them for other interests and goals, may fund them and use
them.
At that
level, I don�t know how government can curb it, because what we need to
celebrate is that you have an NLC, you have industrial unions that have
lived with the funds generated by its members and have tried to be
transparent in rendering its accounts. I don�t see how you can punish a
man for managing his resources so well that you believe that the potency
arising from that efficient management is what you need to
curb.
You now
want to cut his salary, you now want to make his salary epileptic, and yet
you are now saying that the man is not competent.
So I
believe these are issues I wouldn�t want to bother myself about because
with time they will play out, but the unfortunate thing is that by the
time the negative aspects emerge, none of those who have midwifed it will
still be around in government, to harvest the consequences. I think that
is just my regret. But the fact is that today, even the political parties,
you know that as soon as you are approaching 2007, all of them would
become agog, they will come alive. But today, they are all down. So may
our government not encourage moribund labour movements whose structures
and members are there waiting to be funded by those who would give them
instructions on how they would want them to go, under the principle of he
who pays the piper dictates the tune.
Tomorrow,
the issue would be how to contain the excesses and role of labour. I pray
that we do not witness that. But still talking of check off, even given
what has happened, we believe that with continuous working courageously at
any level, to assert themselves, the workers can not be subdued because at
the end of the day, you don�t get check off everyday. Once a member has indicated his
interest and has signed the form initially, he needs no further
consultation.
The only
thing you owe the member is that at any other time, just like when you are
giving somebody a cheque and you have the money in the account, it is only
if you stop the cheque that the money cannot be taken. Iinitially, there
are going to be hiccups, there are going to be dislocations and what have
you, but I don�t even see what the government stands to gain by that
because it is just like the issue of any other
contribution.
Even the
pension law the government has passed, once the worker has said okay, I am
contributing seven (percent), you don�t need to refer to him. I think part
of what we suffer is that some of these policies and the circumstances
that brought them about are not derived from deep thought. We have not sat
down to say, would this option serve that purpose?
So I think
these are panic measures, it is not tidy for me. If you stop my check off,
I will fill a form and say let it continue.
If allowed
to exist the way it has been passed in the Senate, will it enhance the
strength of NLC or weaken it? I am asking this question because somebody
in NLC was quoted recently as saying that in spite of the fact that the
bill allows other labour centres to exist, that there is even an upsurge
of labour unions wanting to come into the NLC.
That is the
aspect I am telling you, that was why I made the point that some of these
processes did not derive from deep thought. Let me give you one example.
In the original bill which the executive sent, they had wanted, for
instance, for a union to embark on strike, you have to get the members to
sign, may be two third (2/3) majority. Now, if you check a union, you
don�t have a union operating in one place. So if you call a meeting of the
national body, it means it will meet under delegates conference to be able
to go on strike. I think those who are facilitating that process are only
looking at making strike impossible, but it never dawned on them that even
the workers on their own, given information technology, can through other
means sign and decide to flag off. Do they not even realise that the same
method would be required to call off a strike? That is the element of deep
thought.
So, having
opened up more labour centres, just like you opened up more parties, did
it strengthen or weaken the PDP? So I see a new commitment, I see workers
who are likely to be more resolved, I even see those who were trying to
come into the NLC but were barred by the way the law was
structured.
You
remember the last delegates conference of NLC, for the sake of its larger
family, NLC amended its constitution which now allows unions and
associations under the so-called Trade Union Act, to now affiliate. So at
the end of the day, the law is not saying that you must have 10 labour
centres. It is only saying, open up the space, but it is not saying that
in the end, if all workers in Nigeria still want to be in one centre, you
won�t force them not to be. So let�s not bother ourselves. Let�s see how
it works out.
It is true
that when there is agitation you are likely to have people talk about
centres We had the TUC and NLC, but arising from the role previous
leadership of the TUCc played, we now have Conference of Free Trade
Unions, emerging from TUC. So people are looking at the fact that workers
will never co-operate, but you are not asking yourself, what are the
issues that have always mobilised workers? These issues are hunger, lack
of protection, insecurity, lack of fulfilment, unemployment, among
others.
Have these
issues been addressed by the government? If Nigerians are usually
mobilised, particularly when NLC gives instruction, are they mobilised
because they love NLC? They are mobilised because of the prevailing
circumstances and the hardship on the ground. So I think that is where the
focus would be. How do we remove those stimulants that encourage Nigerians
to rise each time there are legitimate struggles?
Civil
society organisations, are they existing by regulation in terms of the
structure of the NLC? But when there are challenges, they come together
and face the challenges. That was how democracy was re-enacted and that
was what brought this government in 1999.
Some
people are of the opinion that what brought about this labour bill is
politics in 2007, because somebody not wanting a big force that could
mobilize the people to go against certain interests.
(cut in)
but I am saying that government is also wrong because there is no aspect
of the law, even the one proposed by the executive, that is saying that
there can not be one labour centre. There is opportunity for 100 parties
in Nigeria. Do you have 100 parties? You don�t.
Even the
ILO convention acknowledges that there can be multiple labour centres, but
adds that in a country where there are multiple centres, the one that is
most representative, will represent the country at the ILO, meaning that
there will always be a centre that is stronger than
others.
No,
because of what was eventually passed by the Senate because the original
bill proposed that ��
(cuts in)
even that which was passed, that is what I am saying. In the original bill, the only
thing I know that would have happened is that if you have deregistered the
NLC, and there is an attempt to register a centre with the name NLC, may
be by the minister (and that
was why I think the Senate, in their wisdom, said that such powers should
not be given to them.
But I am
saying, at the end of the day, it is not the bill, it is the issues and
personalities, it is the character of the struggle, it is about the
process and the goal. So
Nigerians can still be united under anything. Afterall, under Pascal Bafyau, the
circumstances at that time didn�t create a strong NLC. NUPENG and PENGASON were platforms
used to mobilise Nigerians, not NLC. These are individual
unions.
But today,
it is NLC. So that is what I am saying. It is the issue that government
should address. If you start
chasing the workers, you are missing the point. Anything can mobilise Nigerians.
Under the military, labour wasn�t the driving force; it was civil society
organisations. Today, the
rallying point is labour. Tomorrow it could be the churches and the
mosques.
So you have
to ask, what is the issue. I
think it is the issue that decides those who lead, and how it
happens. So any organization
cannot come and tell Nigerians today that there is no poverty. It would
immediately go into oblivion.
I think the government should focus more on what are these issues
that are uniting Nigerians.
And it is simple� bad governance, poverty and hardship that have
risen as a result of arbitrariness and exploitation.
Except we
address these, even if Nigerians are not mobilised, in their quiet homes,
they are cursing their leaders.
That is
bottled-up anger. Is it
because of that the government wants to drive organisations
underground? I don�t think
any good government would do that.
What
would you say about the squabble between Ojukwu and the
SSS?
Well, I
think the process of SSS or the method they are using needs to be
reviewed. That process that was used under the military, inviting people
suspiciously and what have you can no longer be acceptable. That is just
what has emerged.
By the
structure of SSS, which you know is about institutions and security which
are not clearly defined, and are considered to be in the interest of
Nigerian state, I think it is appropriate that they become more open and
civil, because whatever it is they are inviting Ojukwu for, I think the
process of law today demands that even if they had detained him, somebody
would have gone to court to secure his release.
So that
process would have required that Ojukwu could as well have been
interviewed in his house in Enugu. So, whatever is happening is as a
result of the process. This process has shown that SSS method of telling
somebody that he is invited is no longer accepted in the country because
if you see the condemnation that has followed, it could well be that they
were inviting him even for his own interest, for his own
security.
But you can
now see that the process is no longer acceptable. I wouldn�t want to talk
about the contents which I am not aware of. I wouldn�t also want to talk
about the fears raised by Ojukwu about the threat to his life, deriving
from that invitation. But if there is any controversy that has manifested,
I think it is that process which has to be reviewed. I think that is the
extent I can speak now. Except I have more facts on his invitation which
translate to mean threats to his life, I can not comment on those
things.
| 
