|
Centralised labour is a recipe
for anarchy �Leo Ogor
Leo
Okuweh Ogor represents Isoko Federal Constituency in the House of
Representatives and is perhaps one of the few members of the House who
have an intellectual grasp of their committees. He is the Vice Chairman of
the Communication Committee who almost single-handedly, in the last few
weeks, positioned the committee in the front burner of national discourse.
Though as a frontline member of the House, he dwells more on the issue of
the moment, which is the labour movement and the move to either stifle it
or be whipped into line by the government. In this interview with Uchenna Awom, National Aseembly Correspondent,
Ogor gives reasons why he would want the labour movement decentralised and
the merits and demerits in the Trade Union (Amendment) Bill. Also, he
gives insight into the coming Communication (Amendment) Bill.
Excerpts:
As a frontline member of the
House of Representative, are you not worried that it is pressing ahead to
pass the Trade Union (Amendment) Bill, despite mounting opposition that it
is not in tandem with known international conventions, besides being
against the principle of freedom of association and of free expression?
Thank you
very much. You see, the talk about this whole situation does not arise. I
am so surprised that there is so much hues and cries over the amendment of
the Trade Union Bill. We must accept that in every democratic process,
reforms actually are inevitable; they are inexcusable and inescapable. You
know we need to actually inform the society what this bill is actually
about. The House of Representatives will not just pass any bill as
presented by the presidency, the bill itself will have to be seriously
looked into. We will first and foremost argue the bill then when we get to
the third reading of the bill, that is where we will look at the bill
clause by clause. I have taken the privilege of carefully studying this
bill, and sincerely there are some clauses that are not acceptable to the
House. The clause that actually transfers power to the minister to
de-register any trade union or labour movement is not acceptable, not only
to the House itself but others too. Again, the issue of no strike is also
not acceptable. But aside these two clauses, I will strongly say every
other thing there is correct because the bill seeks two things: the
decentralisation of and democratisation of labour so as to protect the
individual. I always like to emphasise this; the individual fundamental
right to freedom of expression and opinion and to hold and impact ideas
and information without interference which is a constitutional right as
enshrined in Section 39 of the Constitution.
So, this
bill is not any big deal per-se, but this bill has to be looked at from
the economic angle, there are so many good sides of this bill, inasmuch as
labour has created so much problems for the economy and the masses because
they have embarked on a number of illegalities that are not acceptable.
Appreciate also that over-centralisation creates its own crises. I am not
saying that centralisation is bad, but over-centralisation creates
dictatorship. But this bill actually seeks just decentralisation and
protection of
everybody�s
right. You will also appreciate that strike is always the last option and
strikes are not productive but destructive. So, we think that we are
seeing this issue from the economical angle, to see how we can actually
package this country and move this nation forward. As it is now, the
labour market is over-saturated, the unemployment rate is becoming a major
problem and the foreigners that are actually coming in to invest their
funds are becoming uncomfortable because of the kind of crises they see on
day-to-day basis in our country essentially as per unexpected labour
unrest. So we think before anybody can go on strike, let that person agree
that yes, within himself he is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that
he is going on strike. Then you know he actually has taken that decision,
not somebody sitting in Abuja to take a decision to say shut down the
whole place; I think it is wrong.
Labour�s grouse last time was
the issue of incessant hike in the prices of petroleum products. Do you
not think that they are justified to embark on strike since it remains the
only weapon at their disposal if dialogue fails?
I don�t
disagree with labour�s right to embark on strike. I disagree with the
principles and procedures when these strikes are embarked on. You see, if
we are not careful, we will end up creating dictators in our society in
every field of life. When labour calls for strike, yes it is their
constitutional right to do so, but it is also my constitutional right to
either belong to that strike, participate or not, but you understand that
what happens in this country today is that if you refuse to participate in
those strikes, then automatically the first thing that will face you if
you dare step out is molestation. I had the windscreen of my car shot at
once because I dared drive out of my house when labour was on strike. Some
people now decree that people should stay indoors. �Go buy foods, stock
them in the house because we don�t know how long this strike is going to
last.�. What I hate in this whole process is the molestation. This
molestation is dangerous, it is dangerous to the principles and norms of
democracy. Imagine a situation where NLC will decree that if anybody wants
to sell fuel or if any filling station dare open when strike is on, people
should go there and take petrol free of charge or just imagine a situation
where it is decreed that if any bank dare open during strike, people
should go into that bank and take free cash. In a democratic society like
ours where the constitution protects the right to liberty� Section 35 of
the Constitution gives you that right to liberty, Section 41 of the same
constitution gives you that right to freedom of movement� if we are not
careful, we will end up creating anarchy in this country because one thing
can actually create a problem and a situation where there will be
breakdown of law and order. We should not be afraid to address the truth,
because sometimes if you come out to speak the truth, people see it as if
you are a government sympathizer, which is not the situation. If we allow
such situation to continue, labour might create anarchy in the system.
Let�s look at it sincerely. A significant symptom of a coup de�tat,
whether you like it or not in a democratic era, is the paralysis of
government, governance in the short term or long term abeyance.
As per
the fuel issue, some of us believed from day one that government got the
whole issue wrong. Inasmuch as we supported deregulation, we believed then
that first thing the government must do was to make sure that the
refineries function. It is a situation whereby we are actually exporting
the primary product to use it to buy a finished product. It is not done in
any civilised society, but for the fact that we rushed into it, we take
collective responsibility for what has happened. That does not mean that
we cannot go back to the drawing table. But what we are saying here is
that two wrongs don�t make it right. And if for the fact that government
got the whole thing wrong from day one without taking care of the
refineries, what you will appreciate in this situation is that we are
importing this fuel, but thank God that we are having a windfall from the
increase in the international crude oil sales. But do we now take this
money and use it to subsidise the domestic fuel prices or take it and see
if we can fix our refineries? If we don�t fix the refineries, why can�t we
build new ones with this kind of money? Why don�t we use the money to
develop other refineries because there is a large market within the West
African sub-region? What I am saying here is that labour as an
organisation must deviate from the culture of measuring strength and
performance in terms of conflicts. I disagree with them here, because
strike actually does not bring anything good; what it brings is total
destruction.
There are insinuations that
the bill was a sign of vindictiveness by the Presidency and that its
timing was to forestall strikes and collective opposition to further
increase in the prices of the petroleum products. Do you share this
view?
I think
the issue of timing is immaterial because I strongly believe that the
House of Representatives or the National Assembly is a House where you
have a lot of competent materials, who will look at issues objectively
with firm conviction before they take position. What Labour must
appreciate as an organisation or the public per se must appreciate is that
self-interest charges are constitutionally enshrined in representation.
You have elected your representatives to come to that House to represent
you. The interests of our constituents are more important to us than any
other interest. My constituents come before the President himself. But the
interest of Nigeria, in general, comes before any other interest. What we
are saying here is that the issue of victimisation or whatever it is
called does not arise, because we are going to look at this issue
objectively, we are going to look at it with a lot of conviction before we
arrive at a firm position. The President is not going to tell me to pass a
law, just for the sake he wants somebody victimised. I will say no to him.
I will say it because this is what I strongly believe in. Like I said, the
option of saying there should be no strike at all is not acceptable to
anybody. Again, giving the minister power to decide which union to
register or not register is also not acceptable. But there are some
provisions in that bill that are constitutionally right because they
protect every individual�s fundamental right to freedom of association and
to hold and express opinion. That goes to say that unions can actually go
on strike, but the individual must look at issues objectively with firm
conviction. I don�t see anything wrong with that. But you will agree with
me that at the end of the day, strike actually does not achieve anything
successful. It comes up destroying or setting certain people
back.
But NLC, which seems to be the
major target of this bill, as they said in one of their several
submissions, is already decentralised. Because the situation is that the
affiliate unions have the right to enter and also get out of the umbrella
organisation. Now, have you as a House at anytime received complaints from
any of the affiliate unions that NLC forced them to join or that at
anytime they were forced to join in a strike against their
wishes?
That is a
very straight forward question and I will probably give you a
straightforward answer. I am a Nigerian, alright, and what we are saying
here is the freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. What I am saying
as a Nigerian is give me the privilege as a worker to look at issues, you
don�t just stay in Abuja and say because Mr. A or Mr. B has agreed to go
on strike, then the whole nation should go on strike and if you are not
prepared to go on strike, you cannot come out of your house. These are the
issues we are fighting. Now, if you look at what is happening, what we are
saying is that every union should be able to agree and say yes we are
going on strike. And in such a case, knowing full well that strike is the
last option, which I strongly believe is the last option, it is almost
like calling for a referendum. Strike is dangerous because I know that it
is disruptive. Every individual should be able to express that right of
holding his or her opinion without being coerced, not that the labour
congress will be in Abuja and gather 10 or 15 unions and take a final
decision that everybody must go on strike. I for one believe it is wrong,
that is my personal opinion. Well, I may be consulting my constituents
over this issue, but I will be able to give them my own feelings over the
matter.
Now if you people pass this
bill, expunging the no strike clause, and removing the power to register
or deregister labour unions from the Minister of Labour, do you think this
will meet the supposedly expectations of the President?
The
interest of the President here is not important; it is the interest of
Nigerians that I am actually looking at. If Mr. President is actually
interested in a situation that will make me embark on anything that is
unconstitutional, I strongly believe that the constitution of my country
is supreme and I would not want to get my hands into anything that I
consider is unconstitutional, because I strongly believe it is the
constitutional right of every worker to go on strike and if that is the
case, the minister does not also have the power to register or deregister
any labour union. But I strongly believed that centralised government
creates dictatorship.
Now back to your committee. As
the Vice Chairman of the Committee on Communication, you recently hinted
the press that you are sponsoring a bill to amend the existing
Communication Act, what is it all about?
There are
some sections of the Act which were hurriedly put in place, which I think
are quite wrong. And if you look at the section that set up the Universal
Service Fund, it actually did not specify any function for this agency.
There is no agency, what we have is just the Universal Service Fund. The
reason for the fund is to provide accessibility to the rural areas where
the GSM service providers or telephone operators will find unprofitable to
go into. And if you look at that area critically, we have not been able to
move any step in that direction. But in the rural area, that is where we
need telephone more than even the urban areas because the ability to reach
the nook and cranny of our society is very important and I strongly
believe that this Act that we are actually trying to amend will take care
of these noticeable anomalies in the present Act. There are other
sections, especially the section that transfers some powers to the
Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC). We also have the Nigerian
Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and in that particular one which is the new
Communication Act, the powers of the NBC has been transferred to NCC,
which is wrong because the Act that established NBC is still existing.
Again, there is spectrum operation, which is all about security, private
operations and all that; and there is a National Frequency Management
Council which is supposed to run the whole spectrum operations. But the
way that Act was drafted was too wrong that you have to transfer the
spectrum operation to NCC which I think we must also look at . NCC
actually should not be running that particular section of the Act, it is
the Nigerian Frequency Management Council that is supposed to be running
spectrum. They will only allocate spectrum to NCC, that is only into
commercial operation. We must look at the security aspects. You don�t
leave NCC that is into commercial operation to handle security spectrum
allocation because the defence of our country can be at stake. And how do
you allow a commercial organisation to handle spectrum allocation to the
Ministry of Defence? It is dangerous. Those are some of the sections we
believe we must correct in this Act through the new bill. There are also
others that are not in conformity with the Act.
|
