NLC Rejects Federal Government's Plan to Limit Union Leadership Tenure




The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) expressed strong opposition yesterday to the federal government’s purported plan to limit the tenure of labour union leaders to two years. The NLC denounced what it views as a deliberate campaign against its leadership and operations.


Comrade Benson Upah, the NLC’s head of information and public affairs, addressed journalists in Abuja, highlighting the recent raid on the NLC secretariat and accusing the government of excessive interference in union affairs. He warned that this move appears to be part of a broader strategy to undermine the labour movement.


Upah asserted that if the government is adamant about imposing a two-year limit on union leaders, the same standard should be applied to all public offices, including the presidency. He also condemned recent government actions aimed at silencing the NLC, such as threats from the Registrar of Trade Unions regarding the NLC’s connection with the Labour Party, calling these actions violations of constitutional rights and international labour standards.


In response to police justifications for the raid, the NLC dismissed their claims as contradictory and unsubstantiated. The union has called on the police to provide evidence for their actions and has expressed concern about the potential risks from such raids, vowing to hold the police accountable for any future incidents.


Upah stated, “The government’s effort to limit union leaders’ tenure to two years is a severe infringement on the internal operations of trade unions and contravenes labour laws and ILO conventions. We urge the government to cease these acts of intimidation against the Nigeria Labour Congress and all Nigerians.”


He further added, “If the government insists on a two-year limit, it should apply this rule universally, including to the presidency. We also call for an end to government interference in the Labour Party and other opposition parties. Our actions are guided by the decisions of competent courts.”

Comments