Perils of impunity: Reflection on labour actions and leadership responsibilities in Nigeria

By Sadiq Muhammed

The cornerstone of any functioning society is the adherence to the rule of law, a principle that extends to all levels, including the sphere of labour relations. When labour unions, entrusted with safeguarding the rights of workers, choose to disregard court orders, it sends a disconcerting message. The decision to embark on a nationwide strike, a potent tool for expressing discontent, loses its legitimacy when wielded in defiance of legal directives.
The attack on Ejiro, the labour president, serves as a poignant reminder of the repercussions of lawlessness within the labour movement. The assault not only jeopardizes the safety of individuals but also symbolizes a broader erosion of respect for established norms. In parallel, the union’s decision to circumvent legal channels and opt for a nationwide strike instead of seeking redress in court reflects a similar departure from lawful means of dispute resolution.
Leadership within the labour movement carries a profound responsibility to exemplify the highest standards of ethical conduct and adherence to legal frameworks. The failure to do so not only compromises the credibility of the labor movement but sets a precedent that undermines the very principles it aims to champion. Leaders must recognize that playing by the rules is not a sign of weakness but a demonstration of commitment to the ideals they seek to uphold.
The paradox of fighting illegality with further illegality compounds the challenges within the labour sector. When the response to perceived injustices mirrors the transgressions it aims to rectify, the overall impact is detrimental to the pursuit of justice and fairness. It is imperative for the labour movement to reaffirm its commitment to legal avenues for dispute resolution, acknowledging that the end does not justify the means.
The incident involving the labour president in Imo and the nationwide strike initiated by the union reveal a troubling pattern of sidestepping legal redress in favour of more immediate, albeit unlawful, actions. This underscores the need for a strategic re-evaluation within the labour movement to ensure that principles of justice are not sacrificed for expediency.
In a society that recognizes civil disobedience as a legal form of protest, a critical question arises: which takes precedence, the right to civil disobedience or the adherence to a court order? Labour must navigate this delicate balance, acknowledging the legality of civil disobedience while respecting the sanctity of court orders. Consequences loom for those who flout lawful orders, as the adage goes, “what goes around comes around.”
As a pressure group, the labour union must be unwavering in its commitment to being a law-abiding organization. Setting a precedent of disobedience to court orders not only undermines the credibility of the union but also fosters an environment that encourages others with a mind-set inclined toward illegality.
In a nutshell, the labour sector stands at a crossroads where decisions made today will shape its future trajectory. The cyclical nature of impunity must be broken, and a renewed commitment to legality, ethical conduct, and respect for established norms must be the guiding principles. Only then can the labour movement authentically advocate for the rights and well-being of workers while upholding the principles it purports to champion.

Muhammed writes from Abuja