The Director-General of the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association, NECA, Adewale-Smatt Oyerinde, has dismissed claims by the Federal Government that the recently approved National Industrial Relations Policy was designed to stop strikes, insisting that “no policy can eliminate industrial disputes.”In this interview, Oyerinde accuses the government of misrepresenting labour policies for political purposes, warns against attempts to treat workers’ funds as government revenue, and calls for the urgent constitution of boards for PenCom and NSITF.
He also weighs in on the state of the economy, multiple taxation, and Nigeria’s obligations under International Labour Organisation, ILO, conventions.
The Federal Executive Council, FEC, recently approved the National Industrial Relations Policy, which the Minister of Information claimed was designed to “reduce or stop strikes.” What is NECA’s position?
Our position is rooted in principle. First, there is the policy itself, then there is the way it was communicated. If you hand a hammer to someone who is not a carpenter, seeing it for the first time, they will most likely describe its use differently. That is exactly what happened. The hullabaloo arose from the way the Minister of Information communicated the policy, saying it was a document approved by the FEC to reduce or stop strikes.That is neither the context nor the content of the National Industrial Relations Policy. The policy is simply meant to regulate how social partners operate and to guide our relationships. Social partners—including the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, Trade Union Congress of Nigeria, TUC, NECA, and even the ILO—were all part of drafting it, line by line. We validated it together and agreed it was fit for use.But when the Minister of Information, instead of the Minister of Labour who truly understands the context, announced it, he presented a perspective that angered the social partners by suggesting it was meant to stop strikes.
That was never the intention. Industrial conflict is inevitable. What the policy does is help regulate escalation and provide mechanisms for managing disputes. To say there will be no conflict is untrue.
We have a robust relationship with social partners—NLC and TUC. We have identified and will continue to identify areas where we align, and we know there are areas where we will disagree. Rather than focus on points of conflict, we strive to smoothen areas of alignment for the benefit of workers, employers, and ultimately, the government.Employers and labour are significantly aligned on many economic issues. If employers suffer, labour suffers too. Businesses closing down means loss of jobs and membership for labour, which nobody wants—neither employers, labour, nor government.So, while the federal government is trying to harmonise tax, make all taxes one digit, we still have people coming from the backyard to come up with one tax or the other, claiming that those taxes and levies, or those levies and fees, are incorporated in their acts. The law gives them the right to collect it because it is in the acts that established them.
Meanwhile, the federal government, looking at the overall economic objectives, says let’s hamonise all these taxes. So while the committee is doing the very beautiful work of harmonising, we have also pointed to them that we must also keep an eye on all the agencies whose acts give them the right to collect one levy or the other. If you don’t deal with that, it will negate or rubbish the work that the committee is doing.
There have also been concerns about deductions from NSITF and the non-constitution of the PenCom board. What is NECA’s stand?
Our position is clear: these agencies were established by Acts of the National Assembly, backed by ILO conventions, and belong not only to government but also to social partners. Employers and workers are the most critical stakeholders.
For PenCom, employers contribute 10 per cent of payroll, and workers contribute eight per cent of their earnings. These are other people’s funds, not government revenue. The urgent constitution of the PenCom board is non-negotiable to ensure proper oversight.
The same applies to NSITF. Employers contribute funds to protect workers in case of injury, making us critical stakeholders. These funds are not government revenue. You cannot budget for workplace injuries; they are unpredictable.Similarly, the Industrial Training Fund (ITF) is not a revenue-generating agency. Employers contribute, and at least 50% is reimbursed to those fulfilling training obligations.
The government’s recent circular directing a percentage of funds from these agencies into the Federation Account is misguided. These are not revenue-generating agencies; their funds serve specific social purposes.
Labour has given the government an ultimatum. What role is NECA playing in this standoff?
Everyone has been pushed to the wall. Unfortunately, employers cannot go on strike. But we are deeply interested in ensuring the right thing is done—by respecting the Acts.
Nothing is more important in corporate governance than having a board in place. PenCom needs a governing board. NSITF needs a management board. While other boards have been inaugurated—even those facing operational challenges—these two remain without boards.
The PenCom DG is doing commendable work, but a board is still essential to provide oversight.
