|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Labour walks the tightrope as the nation faces high fuel prices
CELEBRATIONS for this year's Independence Day on October 1 might not be lively for many Nigerians. The reason is the recent hike in the prices of petroleum products. As Nigerians anticipate October 1 which is seven days away, they will however remember that the present scenario looks familiar. In 2004, as they looked forward to celebrating the 2004 New Year, they were instead confronted with a N1.50 fuel tax. A few months later, the anticipation of celebrating the May 2004 Democracy Day was heralded with a N50 fuel price hike, which was later reduced to N43.50. And for October 1, 2004, the government has hiked the price of fuel to between N52 to N53.50.
Each hike had precipitated protests, and strikes organised and led by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). However, there is an uncertainty over the response of the Labour over the current hike.
As the NLC meets today in Abuja, to find a way to respond to the latest hike, one question will be asked. Can Labour still embark on a strike to protest the hike? In this instance, Labour faces a severe challenge as Justice Roseline Ukeje of the Federal High Court, Abuja had ruled that the NLC cannot embark on strike to protest government policies. In her ruling in which she said that Labour cannot go on strike on matters not related to employer/employees relations, she also said that the office of the President of the NLC was not recognised by law.
Ukeje's ruling means that any strike called by Labour on any government policy like the hike in prices of petrol is illegal.
The NLC is also contending with the passage of a bill by the Senate, which reviewed the Act establishing the Labour organisation.
Ukeje had ruled that the pricing policy in respect of petroleum and the introduction of N1.50k fuel tax do not qualify as trade disputes for which the NLC, as a trade union can embark on a strike. The NLC, she said cannot "exercise their perceived rights as to close or attempt to close down airports, stop the movement of vehicles, close down markets, or force unaffected citizens to forcibly stay at home away from their usual enterprises." The policy of hiking of petrol prices does not qualify as a matter of relationship of worker and employer.
However, Mr. Adams Oshiomhole, the NLC leader has said that he was willing to go to jail rather than let government impose anti-people policies. If he convinces the affiliates of organised Labour, to act as if nothing has changed then the scenario of another strike could be looming.
As a way of checkmating Labour's threat, government had always rushed to the courts to obtain injunctions to prevent the NLC from embarking on strike.
Strikes have remained Labour's only weapon in the battle to halt the upward review of prices of petroleum products. But after the price hike in January, Labour called out workers for what it called the strike to end all strikes. It had hoped that the strike would finally open government to the readiness of the NLC to dialogue, as partners in progress. It was also seen as Labour's own admission that it could not go on deploying the instrument of strike forever.
Chairman of the Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP), Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa said that the country would be doomed if the NLC did not provide "this kind of challenge to the misrule by the current government."
The NLC, he said had proved that it remains "the most credible and relevant platform for furthering the cause of democracy in Nigeria. The NLC through the strikes is doing more than any political formation in this country, for the time being. The amount of sacrifices they are making, even political parties cannot make that."
The option of strike to Oshiomhole was not in furtherance of trade union matters, but a political strike against unjust policies of the government, a tool to protest dictatorship. Labour in that regard, sees government's approach to the issues of conflict as a threat to democracy. For the NLC, it is only in a true democratic setting that Labour expresses the freedom to go on strike. The question Oshiomhole asked is whether it is more democratic to stop Labour from protesting government's attitude to the hiking of the prices of petroleum products than for Labour to protest protest government's anti-people policies?
Labour has said that its stance is that the President cannot be executive and legislature at the same time while ignoring due process.
While Labour is meeting to consider its next move, civil society organisations have asked it not to be hampered by the court ruling and instead go ahead and declare a nation-wide strike. The United Action for Democracy (UAD), a coalition of 50 pro-democracy groups, Afenifere, the Civil Liberties Organisation, (CLO), National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), Campaign for Democracy (CD) in backing the NLC for a strike, have called on Nigerians to stay at home as from today.
The handicap of Labour is not self imposed. The sequence of events that had led Labour to the present cul-de-sac looks like an orchestrated plan by the government to clip the wings of organised Labour.
The courts as ally
Government has never tolerated the idea of organised Labour embarking on strike to protest " non-agreeable" government policies. Last year, it went in and out of the courtrooms to obtain injunctions to stop the NLC from embarking on strikes. Oshiomhole called the injunction obtained in a Lagos High court "a black market injunction."
There is a tinge of irony in the recent ruling by Ukeje. A few days to the last strike by Labour, the government, had gone to the court, went to court to stop the strike while it sought to impose the N1.50k fuel tax. Justice Ukeje, like her colleague, Justice Lawal Gumi did in January, ordered the marketers to revert to N38 for a litre of petrol. As Gumi did, Ukeje also directed the NLC to shelve its planned strike.
It took awhile before government and its agencies obeyed the order for the reversion of petrol prices although Labour called off the strike.
Ukeje is familiar with the battle between Labour and the government. Her ruling that the NLC cannot call out workers on strike on matters that are not strictly related to employer/employee relations contradicts the position of Gumi who had once ruled that Labour has the right to call out workers on strike.
By her position, the NLC should be concerned about representing the interest of its members on any national advisory body set up by the government of the federation. It should disseminate information and advice its members on economic and social matters; offer financial assistance to its indigent members, and promote the education of members of trade unions in the field of Labour.
She said, "both in the Trade Unions Act (Cap 437) and in the Trade Disputes Act (Cap 432), I have searched in vain for the statutory creation or the statutory functions of the President of NLC. I saw no provision relating to the NLC President. I was shown no such law. However, Section 34(1) of the Trade Union Act empowers the NLC to make its own rules... It is possible that the position of the president of the NLC was established in-house or under the NLC rules."
The judgment raised some curiosity coming as it did after the Senate passed the Labour Reform Bill that reduces the powers of the NLC as a Central Labour Union.
The law courts have become the major instruments to "kill" peaceful rallies, and end strikes. In January 2003, during the call for a strike to protest the N1.50 fuel tax, Gumi told the government that, "protest is a right guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution." He had noted that restraining Labour would amount to impeding the fundamental human rights of workers.
The issue then was not whether government was right in imposing the tax, but that Labour had the right to protest the imposition. Acting as an arbiter in the interest of peace and not really justice, the court had also ordered the government to suspend the implementation of the tax while Labour would suspend its strike.
Gumi's ruling implied that it is a worker's right to go on strike; it is in tune with modern democratic governance; it is workers' right to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with policies that threaten their existence.
NLC lawyer, Femi Falana, had said that the government has no right to stop the workers from enjoying their fundamental human rights. And while the government said it went to court because the NLC had not followed due process, the NLC equally accuses the government of seeking black market injunctions from compromised judges to stop the strike.
It is feared that government's readiness to run to the courts is turning the courts into political instruments of the government. To Labour and the other political parties, "the courts are serving political ends."
The Senate Connection
At best, the Senate has been ambivalent on the issue of increases in prices of petroleum products and the call for strike to protest the price hike.
The manner in which it passed the executive bill that reviewed the Act setting up the NLC has been sorely criticised. The Senate leadership has however supported the passage of the bill even when the House of Representatives are still going through the bill. The passage of the bill kicked off the process that was designed to stop Labour from protesting further increases in the price of petrol.
Its adoption on June 1, 2004 of a motion presented under Order 42 and 52 of its Standing Rules condemning the last price increase on petroleum products was seen as a major shift in perspective. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Downstream Petroleum Resources, Senator Emmanuel Azu Agboti, who sponsored the motion, argued that, "successive increases in the pump prices of petroleum products in the country have constituted a major threat to peace, order, and good governance."
He said that the latest increases effected on May 29 during the fifth anniversary of Democracy Day without the consensus and concurrence of all stakeholders was one too many.
"Contending with a nation-wide strike so soon after the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) and the mass action by the Citizens Forum is most inauspicious," he said.
Senate Minority Whip, Mohammed Anka, who seconded the motion said he could not fault Labour "because I can see that they have been terribly provoked. This Senate should urgently call the operators to order."
Although the motion was adopted, the Senate leadership, as it has done in the past when the prices of petroleum products were hiked, towed the argument of the Federal Government.
Wabara described the strike as "unnecessary" to the ire of other senators who said the hike was not justified.
Agboti was piqued at Wabara. He said: "As representatives of the people, the Senate unanimously voted against it and referred the motion to the Committee on Labour and Productivity for further action. This singular act was a testimony to the concern of parliamentarians."
Wabara said, "quick resort to strike will not ultimately stem the impasse over the pricing of petroleum products. A nation-wide strike could only be an option when constructive dialogue fails."
The co-ordinator of the United Action for Democracy (UAD) Bamidele Aturu had said that the leadership of the Senate should support the people. "It is sad that the Senate leadership is not always in support of the masses; it is an irony that the Senate President has turned his back on the electorate. In a genuine democracy, any political leader that is worth that name would do everything to protect the interest of those who gave him the mandate to represent them," Aturu said.
The National Conscience Party (NCP) in a statement pointed out that Section 4(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution vests legislative powers in the National Assembly. It said that the powers have to do with any matters included in the Executive Legislative list as set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Constitution.
According to the statement, "item 39 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution vests power in the National Assembly on mines and minerals including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas."
It also stated that "item 62 (e) in Part 1 of the Second Schedule in the Constitution vests in the National Assembly powers to make laws relating to: control of the prices of goods and commodities designated by the National Assembly as essential goods or commodities."
The statement noted that petroleum products were without doubt essential commodities and only the National Assembly and not the Federal Executive Council can vary their prices.
Government has never hidden its discomfort with Labour. Vice President Atiku Abubakar said the NLC and the issue of strike was a genuine threat to the country's democracy. "In the last few years, threats by the NLC have been more regular. If there is any institution that is threatening democracy, that institution is the NLC. That is not the way to go about it," he said.
President Olusegun Obasanjo had also accused Labour of trying to topple his government when they opposed the increase in pump price of petrol to N34 per litre.
In the main, Abubakar's statement presupposes that government would prefer dialogue as a more democratic approach to protest even where it is obvious that previous responses of government to dialogue with the NLC do not seem to convey that impression.
Chronicle of hike in petrol pump prices
Government rationalises its penchant for hiking the prices of petroleum products with a worn out excuse. It says that the price hike was the only way to ensure regular supply of petroleum products in the country. Since 1973, the pump price has been increased at various times.
In January 2004, petrol sold for between N38 and N40.50 per litre. The prices were raised to N41.70 and N42.70 in March 2004. The marketers increased the prices on May 29 to N50 per litre following a 15 per cent increase effected by the NNPC, in the ex-depot price of petrol from N33.50 to N38.50 per litre.
However, the story of the hike dates back to 1973 when petrol sold for 9 kobo per litre, which was the price the military government of Gen. Yakubu Gowon sold it.
In 1979, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, as military Head of State, increased the price to 15k per litre. In 1986, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida hiked it to 39k per litre. He was to raise it again to 51k in 1990, 70k in 1991, and N3.25k in 1993. The late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha increased the price of petrol per litre in 1994 to N11, and in 1997, he took it to N20.
The democratic government of Obasanjo has seen more increments than any other administration. In 2000, he hiked the price to N22 per litre; in 2003, it was N34. In 2003 and for the first time in the history of the increment, the government introduced petroleum tax of N1.50k. This exacerbated the already frosty relationship between the government and Labour and became the issue of litigation. The present predicament of Labour in the courts is believed to have its roots in its challenge of the tax. The tax was also seen as a ploy to hike the price instead of another straight increase.
The way forward
The issue of the nation's refineries has been in the centre of the price wars and the crisis in the oil sector. The Pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere recently asked the Federal Government to publish the names of contractors who failed to carry out adequately a turn around maintenance (TAM) of the refineries, which has cost over $700 million.
Besides publishing the names, the group has called on government to charge the contractors before the Financial and Economic Crimes Commission (FECC) if it is serious about its anti-corruption crusade.
The current government said it had spent about $700 million dollars to put the refineries, which are over 18 years in shape. However, the failure of the refineries has made the country to depend solely of imported fuel.
Former Secretary for Science and Technology in the defunct Interim National Government (ING), Prof. Barth Nnaji told The Guardian that Nigeria has no business importing fuel. This he said is one of the reasons for the recurrent increases in fuel price.
"We should have enough capacity to produce fuel for this country, the refineries should be working, even if we do not have enough capacity from the government refineries, we should allow private companies to build refineries. A country that is a major producer of crude oil, should not be importing fuel, it just should not be happening," he said.
As a way of curbing the frequent hikes, the National Assembly has been urged to assume its responsibility for future increments.
At the weekend, some Senators admitted that the Senate was partly to blame for failing to curb the alleged excesses of the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), which was empowered to fix prices for petroleum products. The Guardian learnt that there are plans to replace the Chief Rasheed Gbadamosi-led PPPRA with a Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) to ensure stability in the country's downstream oil sector.
Senator Mohammed Abba Aji (ANPP, Borno), said that the National Assembly in the last dispensation erred in passing the PPPRA bill into law. He said the legislature was as guilty as the executive in the oil crisis. In a period of deregulation, he contended that it was inconsistent to have a government agency regulating the price of petroleum products and backed by an Act of the National Assembly.`
Strikes have remained Labour's only weapon in the battle to halt the upward review of prices of petroleum products. Labour had said that the strike in January was the strike to end all strikes. It had hoped that the strike would finally open government to the readiness of the NLC to dialogue, as partners in progress. It was also seen as Labour's own admission that it could not go on deploying the instrument of strike forever. `
Government rationalises its penchant for hiking the prices of petroleum products with a worn out excuse. It says that the price hike was the only way to ensure regular supply of petroleum products in the country. Since 1973, the pump price has been increased at various times.`
The law courts have become the major instruments to "kill" peaceful rallies, and end strikes. In January 2003, during the call for a strike to protest the N1.50 fuel tax, Justice Lawal Gumi of the Abuja High Court told the government that, "protest is a right guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution." Gumi had noted that restraining Labour would amount to impeding the fundamental human rights of workers
|
|
||||||||||||
