HUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA

HUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA


By



Ma’azu Mohammed Yusif
Department of Political Science
Bayero University, Kano

February, 1989

This is a draft document to be edited. It is not allowed to be quoted. But when it is used I hope it will be acknowledged
Introduction
Human rights violations in Nigeria characterised much of the politics of Muhammdu Buhari military administration from January 1984 to august 1985. This period witnessed an outright erosion of Human and Democratic rights in the country, that the current administration, which made up of the same staff with the former regime, and which came to power after a successful coup, even claimed to be an ‘Human rights’ military administration. But contrary is the case. Despite the utterances of the leading officials of the present regime to regarding the Human rights of the people of this country, it is quite evident that political and economic repression, lack of Human and Democratic rights remain a discernable aspect of Nigerian politics. Human right at best, repression and violations of Human rights are carried on in a more skilful, but dangerous manner, which partly included destructing the sources of oppositions to Government, destroying the organisations of mass mobilisation, in a specific sence systematic mass demobilisation.
It is our contention that the emergence of these "neo-fascist" currents in Nigeria is a product of conflicting class interests operating within the social formation, on overcoming Nigeria’s economic crisis. While the state comes with a programme to salvage capital, popular organisations resist. This makes the state to become so desperate, taking a "neo-fascist" political line.
This paper attempts to review the state repressive and inhuman actions which inhibited democratic rights of people and organisations.
Background:
The present crisis of Nigeria’s Economy started in 1982 during the civilian administration, of the presidency of Alhaji Shehu Shagari.
Shagari’s economic measures to arrest the economic crisis contained a lot of IMF prescriptions. Infact his 1983 budget policy was made up of many IMF conditionality. But there began a mounting resistance by students, workers, intellectuals, professional organisations, market women and other popular democratic organisations. Because of the partisan nature of politics, the oppositions became easily popularised. So, the administrations politics of managing the crisis became of repressive strategy. A. R. Mustapha summed this up when he says
"As a consequence of the effect of the economic crisis the Shagari administration… virtually killed "democracy" while intensifying the drive towards repression… The specific policies adopted by the Shagari administration were the terrorisation of the population, using the notorious Para-military mobile police force"1
The repressive and undemocratic postures of shagari administration have been documented rather thoroughly during the last two years of his government2.
Despite these, shagari administration was incapable of implementing the governments economic programme. The government which came to power in January 1984 did not break away from the neo-colonial ruling -class economic programme articulated by the previous administration. Indicating its commitments to IMF prescriptions, the new government even sponsored a publication of its negotiation with IMF: ‘IMF: The negotiation so far3.’ In the publication government pointed 12 conditionalities for Nigeria.
These are:-
(1) Review of public expenditure to reduce the aggregate Federal Government capital expenditure for three years period. (2) Removal of subsidies on petroleum products and fertilizer. (3) To reduce grants, subventions, and loans to parastatals and to privatise some of them. (4) The nationalisation of the customs tariff structure to promote industrial diversifications and international competitiveness. (5) The withdrawal of some industrial incentives like the approved user scheme, designed to assist industrialists to import raw materials at concessionary rate. (6) Appropriate measures to improve revenue collections and the operational efficiency of revenue collecting agencies. (7) Deregulations of interest rate and review of credit guidelines. (8) The promotion of exports manufacturing so as to boost the export of non-petroleum products. (9) Proper foreign debt management through foreign exchange budgeting, and a long-term borrowing programme.(10) Adjustment of producer price and the re-organisation of commodity boards and river basin development Authorities.(11) Devaluation of the naira by 60 percent during the first year and 29 percent each in the next two years.(12) Liberalisation of foreign exchange and import controls.
The implementation of these conditions meant a decline on the living standards of the people and dismantling the welfare responsibilities of the state to the people. Yet the government implemented many of the above conditions, but because of organised resistances by popular force especially the students and the trade unions, the government could not implement the three major element of the package; devaluation of naira; liberalization of imports and withdrawal of so-called petroleum subsidy for example. On withdrawal of petroleum subsidy for example, the state frankly pointed the political implications that might be generated in the country.
The state was so frightened by popular resistances that the then Head of state, Major-General Muhammad Buhari once warned Army officers to always be alert as civilians could overthrow the Government.
The state became more violent. It imposed a rule of terror. One, is through repressive decrees. Some of the more repressive decrees are numbers 2,4,13,16,17,20 and 23. (1) Decrees No.2 titled state security (Detention of persons), empowered the chief of staff supreme head quarters to detain people without trial for period of three months. This could be renewed continuously. When the decree was promulgated, it was used by the regime against students, Labour leaders, social critics, and all forces of oppositions against the economic programme of the regime. (2) Decree No.4 called (public officers protection against false accusation), made it an offence to publicise or broadcast anything that would embarrass Government or a Government functionary, regardless of whether the story was true or not. (3) Decree No.13 named Federal military Government supremacy and enforcement of powers decree conferred only on the supreme military council the power to make and alter any inconsistency coming from Federal military Government decrees. (4) Decree No.16, called civil service commissions and other statutory bodies, etc (Removal of certain persons from office) abolished the right of dismissed workers to seek legal redress, even when their right had been clearly infringed. (5) Decree No.17, called public officers (special provisions), enforced the forfeiture of retirement benefits by workers already dismissed. (6) Decree No. 20 (Miscellaneous offences), provided death penalty by public executions to those who committed certain offences. (7) Decree No.23, military court special powers (enforcement and discipline of Armed forces), prohibited any kind of protest by the Armed forces.
With these and other decrees, the state of law even within the framework of bourgeoisie democracy, as administered in the judiciary had been rendered virtually useless as all provisions of the Government decrees are not challengeable in court of justice even under the guide of chapter 4 of the 1979 suspended constitution.
In addition to the essential decrees, Government came up with other orders, and with threats of arrests and detentions, which undermined democracy and the freedoms of individuals and institutions in the whole society.
The intensification of Resistance
The rise and consolidation of repressive regime intensified oppositions throughout the society which nearly took a co-ordinated and organised form. Oppositions came from many quarters: workers, academics, students, peasants, urban semi-proletariat, market women, professional organisations, the press, churches and mosques, manufacturers Association of Nigeria, individuals, etc4.
The most effective resistance, however, was by popular organisations. Students for example were the most useful source of political resistance. Their demands ranged from reducing cost of education to amore general and political agitations against retrenchment, Government’s intention to temper with academic freedom and all repressive measures. The NLC and its constituent Unions, at any forum, made statements against the regime which terrified the government because it feared workers’ power. Also there were many work stoppages from January 1985 which dashed the hopes of the states Economic programme for unhindered process of capital accumulation. For instance, a central Bank Report mentioned 49 work stoppages during the 1984 period alone. Another source of opposition had been from professional lawyers and jurists who individually and through their professional Association, called for ending of arbitrary arrests and return of juridical norms in the country. Also was he Nigerian Medical Association, who went on strike against the deplorable health care-delivery system and introduction of health levies in the country.
Other significant sources of oppositions were Christian clergy and Islamic preachers. The basis of their oppositions included the socio-economic politicies that produce inflation, unemployment, retrenchment, the curtailment of human rights’ and the general repressive inclinations of the regime.
At another level, detentions of ex-politicians and arrests of even some leading businessmen created a rift between the state and the private capitalist class, that even some private capitalist elements mounted opposition against the regime.
In short, there was mass resistance to the economic and political programme of Buhari regime such that when the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors went on strike, everyone supported them, which nearly gave rise to unity of all oppositions to the regime.
In the face of these democratic demands, which threatened the regime and the entire capitalist system of accumulation, the Government became more intolerant that a policy directive from the supreme headquarters disallowed national discussion on the political future of the country. Also many Associations, individuals and churches were labelled subversives.
Ibrahim Baban Gida Era:
The first important policy statement by the current administration is an undertaking to guarantee human rights. In his maiden speech to the nation, the president promised to review all decrees, which denied the people human rights’. He even straight away repealed Decree No. 4 which gagged the press. He said:
"As we do not intend to lead a country where individuals are under the fear of expressing themselves, the public officers protection against false accusation Decree No. 4 of 1984 is hereby repealed."5
Fine, but is only to gain legitimacy for the new administration. The worst is now done to the press.
Moreso, it is very clear from the maiden speech of the president that he’s still pro-IMF economics, opposed by popular forces in the country. Notwithstanding, the regime thought of controlling the oppositions.
So, the government launched IMF loan debt, with terms of reference for the people to decide whether to take IMF loan or not. Popular organisations did a lot of work of mobilising even the unorganised peasants against the loan and its conditionalities. So, various sections of the Nigerian people, student’s, traders, workers, intellectuals, peasant market women, and a larger section of the private capitalists rejected it. The Government had no alternative but to come up with a statement rejecting the IMF loan. But the Government as it happened in Tanzania came up with Economic programme called Structural Adjustment Programme, which contained all the conditionalities of the IMF, under the name of indigenous programme of overcoming the crisis of Nigeria’s economy.
Another development which popular opinions used to threatened the current administration was the political Bureau debate on the future of civilian politics in the country. Because of the popular and mass opinions of Nigerians for socialism as the only system good for the ‘people’, the Bureau had no other alternative but to recommend socialism as the popular views of Nigerians.
Thus, the Government became more repressive while implementing its Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). It becomes more repressive, but using different style. In the following pages, we are going to highlight some repressive policies and actions of the present regime.
Since the Trade Unions Movements, students; academics have the most organised resistant movements, they are naturally the targets of the repressive tendencies of the regime
(a) Economic Emergency Powers:
We earlier pointed of the crisis of Nigeria’s economy, even before the current regime came to power in August 1985. Thus, in October of the same year, a state of Economic Emergency was declared for a period of 15 months. This culminated in promulgating the national Economic Emergency power Decree which empowers the president to issue for us and make regulations aimed at revamping the capitalist system and regulating any opposition against the system and the state.
Under this Emergency powers, in addition to arbitrary cut of workers ‘wages, virtually all the IMF conditionalities are being implemented under the SAP, introduced under the Economic Emergency powers. This SAP brings extreme of hardship to the people, the reality of which is common to be specified here.
The Government also used the Economic Emergency power against popular organisations. For example, when the NLC was dissolved in February, 1988, a statement came in Government Gazette, as Economic Emergency power (the dissolution of NLC) And when the labour Unions persistently opposed the dissolution and consistently refused to cooperate with the sole administrator appointed by the government another Government Gazette come out using the Economic Emergency powers, stating that no one can stop or challenge the NLC elections to be organised by the sole administrator in a court of justice.
(b) Internal Security Decree:
We earlier mentioned of Decree No.2 (Detention of persons) promulgated by Buhari regime. This Government has done nothing to dismantle this Decree, despite the Government’s human rights slogans. Infact, it used the Decree to arrest and detained more labour leaders, students activists and many others from the ranks of the ‘people’ than the previous regime in the name of state security.
(c) Abisoye panel Recommendations:
After May 1986 students’ crisis, the government established a committee under the chairmanship of Major General (rtd) Abisoye, who’s all recommendations, were accepted by the government, and which gave the government more restrictive leverage over democratic struggles of popular forces in the country.
The recommendations and the government white paper is intended to stifle and neutralise oppositions against unpopular government policies by students. because of solidarity given to the students by Nigeria’s Labour Congress (NLC) and the proscribed Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), and the Government showed its intention, through the Abisoye report to break the historical alliance of students-intellectuals and workers (NANS-ASUU-NLC).
In the case of the intellectuals Abisoye recommended that:
"…members of ASUU in ABU and other universities are not teaching what they are paid to teach. The commission recommends that Government should critically look into this, and if their role is inimical to the stability of Government, these teachers should be flushed out of the universities."6
Government accepted this and asked Federal Ministry of Education to take action. The ministry compiled names of people for dismissal from all universities, but the Academic Staff Union of Universities prevented that to happen. Government put a judicial panel i.e. Akanbi panel to rationalise and legalise what it intended to do, but was also averted by popular resistance.
And to break the unity of students and Labour Movement against the economic and political programmes of the regime, Abisoye recommended that "All Trade Unions should not interfere with students Union activities" and further stated that "student Union is not a trade union and, therefore should not get involved in trade unionism".7 This meant a denial of freedom of association to students and workers. As an undemocratic Government, the recommendations are accepted and even won the NLC not to support student militancy.
The Government has taken more despotic anti-democratic measures against the students and their union. These are the measures against the students;
In order to cripple students Unionism, government ordered university Authorities not collect union fees from students on behalf of the student union and the university Authorities shall no longer give any grant to the student unions.
That congress meeting of student unions is banned, only a parliament and Executive council allowed and where congress meets these two bodies would be held responsible.
That university Authorities should specify leadership qualities and Impose conditions on student’s union politics.
Government also suspended student unionism immediately in all campuses, and subject to lifting only on the student’s satisfying the Governing council of being of good behaviour.
The commission reported that "the Government should determine and check the relationship between NANS and the Student Unions in various campuses" and so Government banned the National Association of Nigerian students.
These restrictions on students Unionism is meant not allow student unionism operate independently. They pave way of infiltration by government and university Authorities, and also authority’s intervention in student’s response to undemocratic policies of government and university authorities as recently the case in university of Benin, university of Lagos and Obafemi Awolowo University.
(d) 1986 NLC Amendment Decree
Following the students crisis in May, 1986 Government felt that, to break the unity of democratic forces and the role of intellectuals in raising the revolutionary consciousness of workers is to excise the proscribed union of academics from the Nigeria’s central labour movements. As such the Decree which established the NLC, and which allowed Senior Staff Unions to join (hence ASUU affiliation), was amended, in order to nullify the affiliation of ASUU. But to weaken the union of the intellectuals, Government also directed that payment of union dues is voluntary.
(e) Dissolution of NLC
Since the beginning of Nigeria’s economic crisis, employers have descended on workers, cutting salaries, retrenching workers for weeks and in many cases dismissing them from work. This meant that the NLC had to rise, which it did to defend Nigerian workers. So, even during Shagari administration for example, Government wanted to come up with legislation to decentralise the NLC, but was resisted by the union. But still then, the National Economic Council Report on the state of the economy came up with recommendations against the labour unions. These are:
"There should be a wage freeze for both public and private sectors throughout the 1983 fiscal year.
strikes should be suspended for a period of one year,
Employees who are on strike should receive no pay for the duration of the strike. Sympathy strikes should be banned completely.
Strikes should be made illegal for essential services and security forces should be organised to step in, in case of emergency"8
These did not deter the labour unions from launching campaign to repeal any legislation against the democratic rights of the working-class and the recognition by Government, by making a law, of the right of workers to strike, including mass strike.
Having the history of the NLC militancy, the current administration, fearing any mass resistance against SAP looked for the slightest excuse to intervene in the affairs of NLC. This opportunity came when in February, 1988, during the national Delegate conference of NLC a disagreement occurred dividing the congress into two factions. Instead of allowing the congress to resolve differences in a democratic manner, the Federal Military Government intervened, dissolved the congress and appointed a sole Administrator, who administered the Union until December, 1988.
By intervening, Government hoped to deregister some unions restructure the NLC, and change the constitution of the congress. These are all intended to balkanise the congress, cut the historic relations between unions and the congress, between state councils and the national body and between the unions and ranks-and file in factories. Furthermore, Government was terrified by the democratic position of the NLC during the political Bureau debate and had wanted either to destroy NLC ideas or infiltrated to subvert it.
Lacking strength to carry out its plan during the period of dissolution, because of more organised resistance from the unions and because the Government anticipated unions to ask the Government to dismiss the sole administrator and allowed the secretariat of NLC to organise the elections, Government came up with order that no court action or tribunal could stop the sole administrator to organise the special delegates conference at which a new leadership of the NLC would be elected. According to an official gazette No. 76 Vol. 75, it said "No any other law, claim or declaration shall be inquired into in any court of Law or tribunal other than as provided for in the promulgated orders."
We earlier indicated that the Government used the Economic Emergence powers to make the order a legislation.
(f) April Riots and Government’s Restrictions:
April riots of students and workers against increase of prices of petrol and petroleum products, made the Government to come up with more measure against the democratic rights of the people. The government threatened to enact a decree with harsh penalties on student’s demonstrations, but in any case to intimidate students from seeking their rights from Government and university authorities, came with an order that any institution that goes on strike will be closed indefinitely. This is to divide the students and create confusion in their own ranks so that they may not be able to stand together and fight collectively for their own rights and the rights of other oppressed people in the society. Here Government also accused radical teachers and ordered authorities of institutions of learning to deal with them.9
Four institutions of higher leaning were closed down for long after the riots. Only to be re-opened when Government noticed widespread opposition to their closure including a strike by proscribed ASUU and intended another insurrection by NLC. As for the Unions, after dishonouring its promises for their demands, government continued with threats against the union through the sale administrator.
(g) Proscription of ASUU:
The Academic Staff Union of Universities was one of the popular organisations that spear headed Democratic and human Rights" of the people. Even during Buhari administration when IMF-imposed policy of retrenchment took place in all government establishments, it could not take place in the university due to the resistance being waged by ASUU. Moreso, ASUU articulated the dangers of SAP for the society and popularised them. Thus, the current administration continued to assault and threatened the existence of the union and even of its leadership. When in June/July, 1988, the union went on National strike, demanding among other things democratisation of university system by giving them autonomy, the government proscribed the union to put a stop to organised struggles against government unpopular policies.
(h) Stifling the Academic and the University System:
As pointed out above, since the current administration came to power, a severe system of internal constraint is imposed on the students to block their political activities. The National Association of Nigerian students was banned and the Academic Staff Union of Universities was proscribed.
And it is still on the agenda of the Government to implement a policy it called rationalisation of the university system which meant introducing a programme of teaching to suit the local ruling-class, IMF and the World Bank. According to the government white paper on curricular in universities, the government openly stated that:
"the curricular of the institutions of higher learning should be modified to teach subjects in such a way as to reduce the prevailing culture of violence and to enhance stability."10
This means to teach students how to be obedient to IMF and World Bank project on Nigeria’s Education. The IMF and the World Bank already gave the following conditions:
"Reductions of number of uneconomic and nonviable faculties and departments.
Reduction of post-Graduate programmes
Retrenchment of a number of supporting administrative staff
Substantial increase in P.G. fees
Making hostels self-financing
Revenue drive to make universities self-substaining
Agreement to standardise equipment procurement.
Planned introduction of an equipment maintenance system and
Planned introduction of a management information system.11
Government came out with its policy of rationalisation in the white paper on higher Education curricular and Development in Nigeria. But when resistance intensified, the government decided to come through the backdoor, so it established accreditation panels to come up with standardisation of courses in universities.
When the panels completed their assignments, the Government has now come up with the same thing under what it called "Minimum Academic Standards" for all courses.
Other serious set backs to freedom and democracy in our university system are: (1) the Government promulgated a Decree titled Decree No. 167 0f 1985 which eroded the power of university senate (contrary to the decrees stabilising them). Under this decree Government has now the power to send a team to inspect course contents. (2) The cut in university funding and the fact that the NUC has now the power to refuse funding any course, subjected university authorities to dictate of Government, and that’s also contrary to rights of people for education. Hence, qualified people are refused admissions because of this restriction.

1. Controlling the Press:
From 1983-1985 the media was highly restricted by Buhari regime. Despite that the press was on the forefront on co-ordinating and popularising oppositions against the economic and political policies of the Government. With the coming of the current administration, as pointed above, the decree which restraint the media was repeated.
But now, the Government keeps on calling the media to exercise restraint. Sometime with threats. However, with the establishment of a forum of meeting of top government officials, sometimes with managing directors of all media houses and sometimes with editor of all papers, a process of co-optation started, and the media is silently rationalising the state policy of SAP.
But this government also came up with another Decree establishing the Nigeria Media council to control and restraint the press (the council will consist of 18 members, all government appointed and who probably are all in government employment to register and discipline journalists).
(j) Tampering with Democratic Transition to Civilian Rule:
The Federal Military Government under takes to return the counter to a democratically elected civilian government in 1992. But right from the onset Government violates principles of democracy by legislating that only two political parties will be allowed to operate and that the popular choice of socialism in the political Bureau Report was rejected by the Government. It also made a Decree (No.25 of 1987) disallowing certain categories of people from participating in the - politics of the transition, while coming up with a slogan of "extremism" to ban socialists from participating. Infact "extremism" also means to marginalise all those suspected to be critics of SAP from coming to power in 1992.
The prospects for democracy are dashed by other developments. One is that when the president inaugurated the constituent Assembly he outlined what and what cannot be deliberated and even intimidated them that government has the right of dismissing any member-elected or nominated. Another thing is that very recently when the constituent assembly could not agree a shari’ah issue, instead of coming up with a position to democratically solve the problem, Government removed the right of the Assembly to deliberate on that again. Another thing is the removal from office by Ana bra state Government of a popularly collected Chairmen of a local Government area in the state. Finally, up to now the constituent Assembly even while objectives of state economic policy, no one has raised any question on SAP, which we feel is because of undemocratic practice of the state and the way the Assembly is constituted.
In the light of this analysis, it is obvious that, while Nigeria is in a transition to democracy to be achieved, and the party and people and people to win the electrons will be those not to question the Economic and political programme of the currant administration
(k) Mamser and demobilisation of the messes
The directorate for social mobilisation (MAMSER) is a government body for mobilisation of the people, for transition to civilian rule currently going on in the country. The aim of the political bureau, in recommending the establishment of MAMSER is to use it to educate the people to defend their democratic rights and encourage the formations of mass organisations to defend the course of socialism. But on the contrary despite the statement on the role of MAMSER it is now used to defend the interest of the neo-colonial ruling-class.
In the present period of transition to civilian rule, if democracy prevails, independent mass organisations might be formed to present a formidable opposition to the economic programme and the undemocratic tendency of the regime. So, many independent mass organisation stopped from being formed by MAMSER sponsored organisation (Youth organisations, patriotic movements, peasant association etc.), or through its own activities, like education programme, which co-opts organisations with potentiality of being politically independent, thus arresting the development of genuine popular organisations.
(l) Detentions:
A government claiming for Human rights did not repeat Decree No. 2 of 1984, which empowered it to detain people in the name of state security. In fact, Government made use of this Decree to arrest and detain labour leaders, students and int5ellectuals on any slightest thing.
When in 1986, the NLC expressed solidarity with students and arranged for a rally, Government arrested and detained many students, intellectuals and Trade unionists, including the president and the secretary-General of NLC, and following the nation-wide industrial actions embarked upon by industrial unions in protest against petroleum price increase, 56 union leaders were arrested and detained by security agencies in different parts of the country and as of August, 1988, some were still in detentions and then, their whereabouts were not known. Also, in every union strike for a legitimate course of workers union leaders are arrested and detained. For example, following the strike of ASUU, NUBIFIE and NEPA staff in 1988, four Union leaders of ASUU were detained, while in all universities, others were arrested and made to be reporting to security office. For NUBIELE 4 were also detained and 13 NEPA staff detained and even arraigned before a military tribunal.
The conditions of living in prisons for both internal security Decree prisoners and other prisoners have been described as sub-human and deteriorating. Even Nigeria’s Human rights Council reported, during Human right Day of 1988, of bad conditions of prisons, as in most prisons many people share a single room, all sleeping on the floor of the room, no quality and sufficient food and no medicine and doctors for prisoners. These cause many deaths of prisoners.
Some political detainees live in more deteriorating conditions in solitary confinements, and subjected to ill-treatment which amounted to psychological torture. In some cases, even physical forture. For example, Etim, a reporter on the Economic Desk of the Guardian, detained under Decree No.2 in August, 1988 revealed his experience thus:
"It was a very boring period - neither radio, newspaper nor any other literature was allowed. For a newsman, this was very traumatic. I was stripped to my underwear and the idle moments were spent gossiping with other detainees - about 12 of them. We were locked inside one room and allowed out for a short while during meal time. Meals were very skimpy, and the three meals of each day served within an eight-hour span instead of the usual 13 hours"12
The experience of NEPA staff was even more terrible, as one of them reported being beaten on the face so badly that he nearly lost one of his eyes.
(m) Weakening Labour Unions
In addition to dissolution of the Central Labour Organisation, the Federal Military Government interferes with affairs of the Unions constituting the Central Labour Organisation. In any disagreement over legitimate grievances of workers, within a Union, Government interferes and side with the reactionary faction with all force. A good example is of NUBIFLE when on a simple disagreement within the Union, which led to unanimous impeachment of the President; Government imposed him back on the union, and provided him even with police escorts.
Also in Labour disputes over legitimate grievances, leaders of Trade Unions become subjected to humiliation. This is the case of all NEPA staff convicted by a Special Military Tribunal for leading a strike, protesting on why Government refuse to implement the agreement reached with the union.
The leaders were accused of subversion and charged under Decree No.20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No.22 of 1986. This action violates the fundamental principle of International Labour Organisation, of the right of workers to strike.
Moreso, in the course of the trial the NEPA staff were refused a bail by the Tribunal claiming that they were detained under Decree 2. There is now a more danger of workers on strike being convicted even by courts of justice. Of recent when workers of impresit Bakolori at Jibia went on strike, nine leaders were convicted by ordinary court of justice. These are violations of all known declarations in "Human Rights".
Another calculated subversion of labour activities by the state is that after the dissolution of NLC, the Government undertook to establish an intelligence unit, under Federal Ministry of Labour, employment and productivity with the sole responsibility of espionage activities in the labour movement.
Also, contrary to the Decree which established the NLC, government allowed an international labour fronts of the capitalist west: ICFTU and Fraeger Foundations to have contact with NLC when the congress as dissolved - organised seminar even donated money to unions, while contact with World Federation still not allowed. This we believe is calculated to re-orient the NLC to ‘Free-Enterprise’ ideology and to propagate anti-communism in the Trade Union Movement.
Conclusion
The deteriorating economic condition brought by SAP, intervention with affairs of popular organisations by the state, infiltration into and demobilisation of mass organisations, all have not prevented continued oppositions to SAP, and on the other hand, in-human and undemocratic actions of the state. On the one hand students, workers, academics continued making statements, against SAP and inhuman actions of the state. On the other hand, organizations of the right like MAN, NACCIMA, Nigerian Association of Management, Farmers’ council, some churches and mosques and many individuals disagree with some aspects of SAP and it’s impact on the people. The problem, however, is to coordinate these oppositions, for a mass mobilization and resistance. Without mass resistance to what the government is now doing, the prospects for democracy even in the Third Republic is not bright. And we believe that the potential for reversing these tendencies is only within mass organisations, the only possible way to channel oppositions in a direction that will ensure the inevitable success of national democratic revolution and the struggle for socialism.

Footnotes
Abdul Raufu Mustapha, "Repression and the Politics of crisis management in Nigeria" paper presented at the conference on the World Recession and the crisis in Africa, University of Keele, England 29th - 30th of September, 1984, P.5
See Y.B. Usman (ed) Political Repression in Nigeria, Gaskiya Corporation, Zaria, 1982
Federal Military Government, "IMF: Negotiation so far", in Sunday Times, Sept. 29th 1985
For a detail of the resistance of various classes see M.M. Yusif, "Class conflict and political change in Nigeria: 1979 - 1985", M.Sc. dissertation, Dept. of Political Science, BUK, 1985
Ibrahim Badamosi, Babangida, "Meiden Speech to the nation" New Nigeria 30th August, 1985
FMG, "Government White Paper on students crisis at ABU Zaria, May 1986". The Standard, July 1, 1986, P.5
FMG, "Government White Paper on students crisis at ABU Zaria, May 1986. The Standard, Thursday, July 3, 1986, P.5
Cited from Yusuf Bangura, Rauf Mustapha and Said Adamu, "The Depending Economic crisis and its political implications" in Siddique Mohammed and Tony Edoh, Nigeria: A Republic in Ruins, Gaskiya Corporation Limited Zaria 1986, P.195
Professor Jibril Aminu, Press Release issued on April Riots by students. May 24th 1988
FMG, Views and Comments of the Federal Military Government on the Report of the study of Higher Education curricular and Development in Nigeria", Lagos 1987, P.1
Nickolas Bennett et al, World Bank Mission on Nigeria’s Universities Sector April, 1988
See the Guardian of Sunday, December 11, 1988, PP. 11 - 12.