OPINION
For The Record: UK Prime Minister, David Cameron On EU Membership
The Prime Minister gave a speech setting out the economic arguments why Britain should remain in the EU.
There is going to be lots of debate about Europe over the next 3 and a half months.
But the biggest issue on the ballot paper on June 23rd is this: our economic future.
And as I’ve said before, the question isn’t whether Britain could still be a great country outside Europe. Of course we could.
The question is: where will our economy be stronger; where will our children have more opportunities; where will families have the most security; where will Britain be better off – in or out of a reformed Europe?
I know that as people make up their minds, what they want – more than anything – are the facts and arguments.
But I know people also want to understand more about Europe, and in particular the single market.
So today, I want to explain what this market is, how it works, and what its advantages are – and crucially how it should change in the future, under the agreement I negotiated and what that means for you, in terms of jobs, prices, investment in our economy, and your family’s financial security.
At the same time, I want to challenge those who advocate leaving to be equally clear about the alternatives that they propose for our relationship with this single market.
Because if there’s one thing lacking in all they have said so far, it is specifics, particularly about this issue.
What trade relationship would Britain have with Europe? What deals would we sign with the rest of the world? What tariffs would British business have to pay?
There are so many people in this country who need answers.
The farmer wondering if his beef will be subject to duties.
The factory worker wondering if his company will cut investment.
The young graduate wondering whether she’ll be able to get a job.
That to me is the difference in this referendum.
On the one side, we have facts about how a single market in a reformed Europe makes Britain better off, all drawn from experts’ projections, and other countries’ experiences.
On the other side, we have unanswered questions.
So as you make what will be the most important decision for this country in a generation, let me take you through the three big advantages of the single market:
First, how it allows businesses, like this one, to trade tariff-free with the European Union.
Second, how it removes the barriers that not even the best free trade agreements can completely tackle.
And third, how it enables the European Union to strike the most ambitious and comprehensive trade deals with the world.
And as I do this, I want to turn to the big questions that leave campaigners need to answer.
Remain: Tariffs
So first, selling to a continent full of customers – 500 million people – tariff-free.
Before we joined, we faced extremely high tariffs:
14 per cent on cars.
17 per cent on bicycles.
32 per cent on salt.
37 per cent on china.
Even, oddly, 20 per cent on gloves – but only 13 per cent on socks.
This all meant higher costs for businesses and for consumers – and less choice on our supermarket shelves.
Today, there is one tariff in the single market: and it is zero per cent.
And what it means is this:
A British businesswoman can sell her goods in Berlin as easily as she can in Birmingham.
A lorry that sets off from Sunderland doesn’t have to deal with layers of bureaucracy in every country as it heads towards for instance Salzburg.
And industries that were once struggling to survive are now thriving.
Let’s take your industry: cars.
For every 100 cars we make, 23 stay here in Britain, 33 are sold beyond Europe – but the biggest proportion, 44 of that 100 cars, they go to the continent.
Why? Not just because of our proximity.
But because those cars – made inside the single market – are around 10 per cent less expensive than if they had been subject to the tariffs that are imposed outside the single market.
And it’s not just the selling that depends on Europe; it’s also the making.
Because in the single market, components are tariff-free, too.
And that is vital to Britain, where 59 per cent of car parts by value are imported.
So as you look at the cars that are lined up here, ready to be shipped, you’re looking at an industry that is completely integrated with the single market.
And that’s good for the people of this country – it creates 140,000 jobs in the car industry; supporting an extra 300,000 jobs; and generating £12 billion a year for our economy.
So many industries benefit from a tariff-free Europe.
Look at chemicals and pharmaceuticals – nearly 140,000 jobs; worth over £22 billion pounds; selling over 50 per cent of their exports to Europe.
Look at food industry – 370,000 jobs; worth almost £20 billion; selling over 55 per cent of exports to Europe.
So when I hear people argue that, by being in this single market, we are “shackled to a corpse”, I say: you won’t find the people in these industries saying that; or the towns whose employment depends on them.
It’s by being in the single market that so many of our companies are growing.
And it also helps us attract a huge amount of investment to the United Kingdom.
Of course, businesses invest in Britain for many reasons – our skilled workforce, our flexible labour market and low taxes.
They invest because of our effective but low regulation – one of the least restrictive in the OECD, in fact, despite our membership of the European Union.
And they invest because our economy is strong.
That’s worth thinking about for a moment.
When we entered the European Community, back in the 1970s, with high inflation and frankly zero confidence in our economy.
Today, 40 years later, our country is much stronger and better off – with one of the fastest growth rates and lowest unemployment rates in Europe.
Now of course, we have turned round our country’s fortunes through our own efforts – not least through fundamental reforms in the 1980s.
But when you consider the country Britain is today compared to when we joined the EU, it is hard to sustain the argument that being in has hobbled us or crippled our ability to do well.
Far from holding us back, our membership of the EU is one reason why countries want to invest.
And every day, foreign companies invest £142 million here in Britain, companies like BMW, Bosch, Ikea, Nissan and Siemens. And of course General Motors.
That doesn’t just create jobs; it helps us to finance what economists call our current account deficit – meaning we can pay our way in the world.
And it’s small businesses that are affected as well.
Nearly a third of Federation of Small Businesses members import or export overseas, and 80 per cent of those who export sell to Europe.
And it’s not just those trading directly with Europe; it’s those connected to that process – in the jargon, in the supply chain: the factory that makes the components for the car company; the local printer who makes leaflets for the factory; the sandwich shop that caters for the printers.
So many businesses succeed, directly and indirectly, because of this free-trade system.
Indeed, 3 million people’s jobs in our country are already linked to it.
And, because of the changes and reforms I’ve secured in Europe, I’m determined that many more businesses will succeed, too.
During that renegotiation I got some clear commitments: to complete the single market in services, in digital and in energy.
This really matters for a country like ours because over three quarters of our economy is made up of the service sector, and we are one of Europe’s leaders in technology and renewable energy.
So the result is clear: more jobs, more investment, lower prices, greater economic security – and hardworking families better off.
Leave: Tariffs
Those who want to leave aren’t clear about what sort of access that we’d have to the single market after we’d left.
Clearly there would be a strong case for trying to secure full access.
But as the German finance minister made clear last week, if you want that you must pay into the EU and accept complete the free movement of people – two of the reasons many people cite for wanting to leave the EU in the first place.
Norway is one example of a country we could follow. They have almost full access to the single market.
But they pay into the EU; accept nearly double the number of EU migrants per head that we do and still have to put up with tariffs on some of their goods.
Crucially, they have no say on the rules of the single market, whereas we do.
Now others will say: let’s sign a free trade agreement like Canada is doing. And yes of course – perhaps we could.
But their free trade agreement is not anything like being in the single market and it retains a number of tariffs and quotas.
Will Canadian farmers have unrestricted exports for their produce? No.
Will Canadian car makers be able to sell their cars in Europe without cumbersome rules on the origin of each part? No.
Their agreement with the EU is over 1,400 pages long – 700 of which are exemptions from free trade demanded by either side.
Now that might work for Canada, which sends around a tenth of its exports to Europe.
But it wouldn’t work for Britain, with around half our exports going to Europe.
Then there are those who will argue that we could pull out of the EU and fall back on World Trade Organisation rules.
But that wouldn’t mean tariff-free trade.
Even with the WTO Most Favoured Nation treatment, we’d be exposed to tariffs of 10 per cent on our cars, 11 per cent on clothes and 36 per cent on average for dairy products. What would happen to jobs in those sectors?
Of course, each of those three outcomes, access to the Single Market, but accepting fees and migration; a free trade agreement; or WTO rules, all of these are do-able. And people who want to leave the EU should decide which they favour.
But there is another key question. Would Britain get a good deal?
Now here I want to cut through some of the rhetoric.
Because we have the leave campaigners saying any hint that you think Britain may not get a good deal is somehow “talking Britain down”.
And we have remain campaigners saying it’s all very difficult and all very hard.
So I just need to present you with the facts, so you can make up your own mind.
If Britain was to vote to leave, we would have to enter discussions with the EU on what our trade relationship should be like.
And these will be the negotiating dynamics:
One nation negotiating with 27 nations.
Britain’s market of 60 million negotiating with a European market of 440 million.
Britain, a country which sells 50 per cent of its goods to a European bloc, compared to a European bloc which sells only 7 per cent of its goods to us.
Those are the facts. I will leave it to you to judge who the balance favours.
Remain: Non-tariff barriers
Now the second big advantage of the single market is that it doesn’t just eliminate tariffs, it eliminates other barriers to trade – things that are known as non-tariff barriers.
These are the often more technical rules but they impose hidden costs on businesses.
Things like refusing to recognise the professional qualifications of your staff.
Or saying that your company has to set up a separate legal entity in every single country you want to trade in.
This is particularly important for Britain, which relies less on goods, which are hindered by tariffs, and more on services, which are hindered by these non-tariff barriers.
We’ve already demonstrated how effective we can be at bringing down the barriers.
In the 1980s, a lorry load of goods setting off from Manchester to Milan would be carrying 88 separate documents.
Today, thanks to this internal market which we drove forward, they have been replaced with just one piece of paper.
Before the 1990s, airlines could be blocked by other countries from flying where and when they wanted.
Britain helped end that, and that spawned EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2.com, and opening up the continent to British businesses, students and holidaymakers, making travel much, much cheaper.
Of course it’s not always easy.
There are times when changes to these non-tariff rules can cause us problems. But frankly that’s no surprise when you have an organisation of 28 different members.
But on the big questions, we have a seat at the table to help shape those rules and promote Britian’s industries.
One of the biggest non-tariff barriers is the ability of countries to ban your product on the basis of often spurious concerns.
With a seat at the table and enforceable rules, we are able to challenge those things.
And that’s what we did in 2001 when the European Court of Justice overturned France’s bogus ban on British beef.
Without the single market, there are obstacles to selling meat for instance to some of our biggest trading partners – even our friends, like America.
How much British beef do you think we sell in America? None. All because of restrictions that are nearly 20 years old.
That shows just how important it is to be able to shape the rules to suit our interests, which the single market in the EU enables us to do.
Then there’s for instance the financial services, employing 1.1 million people in this country and adding £133 billion pounds to our economy.
This industry goes way beyond London; two-thirds of financial sector jobs are based outside the capital.
All have the benefit of being able to trade in the single market of 500 million people without having to set up an office anywhere else other than the UK, because we are in the EU.
Recently, there was move that could’ve forced UK-based companies that clear euros – a bedrock of our financial services, to move inside the Eurozone.
That could’ve been deeply economically damaging for our country.
But we had our seat at the table, and we were able to stop it.
And through my renegotiation I’ve made sure a proposal like that can never happen again.
And let me be clear: I am the first to say that there needs to be further reform of the EU.
My renegotiation isn’t the end of the road for reform.
It’s another important milestone in our ongoing mission to make sure the EU works for us.
Leave: Non-tariff barriers
Now what about the alternatives?
We need to be clear.
If we voted to leave, we could sign the best possible free trade agreement in the world with the European Union, but it still would not come close to giving British companies the access they get to the world’s largest free trade area from the single market.
Why?
Because – and this is really important point – even the best free trade agreements leave many of these non-tariff barriers in place.
For British firms like this, it would be a return to the bad old days of endless forms and burdensome bureaucracy and, along with losing out on the benefits of a more complete single market, it could cost Britain over £50 billion, according to the London School of Economics.
That’s not all. Those who want to leave Europe claim we would be repatriating powers.
But leaving Europe would in many ways give us less control:
We’d still be affected by its rules if we wanted access to the single market – we just wouldn’t have any influence over them.
Just ask Switzerland.
There’s a reason their banks base substantial operations inside the UK: they have no agreement that guarantees their access to the single market.
And then there is Norway.
As their prime minister said only last week: “We lack influence in important decision-making processes in the EU. We have special arrangements on some issues, but basically we have lost our sovereignty.”
That is what the Norwegian Prime Minister is saying outside of the EU because of the relationships they’ve signed with the EU. Now that’s a really important point.
Remain: Trade deals
The third big advantage of the single market is that it actually helps us to trade the world over.
Those who imply there is some sort of choice, between trading with Europe on the one hand and trading with the rest of the world on the other hand, are wrong.
It’s not either/or. We’ve got to do both.
Indeed, the fact that we are part of such a huge market – of 500 million people – means our companies have the platform to grow, scale up quickly and take on the world.
But on top of that, our membership of the single market means we are able to trade with many more countries beyond Europe, on a preferential basis, because the EU has free trade agreements with them.
Adding those countries – like Mexico and South Korea – to EU member states means we can trade more easily with a third of the entire world.
This really matters.
The EU-South Korea trade deal may not sound like a big deal for Britain, but ask the people who work in this industry.
Since it was implemented, car exports from Britain to South Korea have nearly quadrupled.
And this is just the beginning.
I put at the front and centre of my renegotiation clear commitments to complete more preferential trade and investment deals right across the world.
There are another 9 on the way – from Japan to India and America.
Take the EU-US trade deal, known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
When complete, it will make it easier for one of the world’s richest economies to buy British products.
But it isn’t just about the big industries that benefit. It’s also the small ones.
A company like Amtico flooring – they could be free from tariffs of up to 12.5 per cent if they are allowed to send their stock between their Coventry and Atlanta plants.
Think of Five Point Plus, who make car harnesses for children. They could sell their products to many more people.
So we should see British business after business break into America – thanks to our deal through the EU…
…which could make our economy up to £10 billion a year better off.
Leave: Trade deals
If we vote to stay in a reformed Europe, we know we get these preferential trade deals.
But again, a vote to leave is a vote for huge uncertainty.
Leave campaigners say countries would queue up to sign trade deals with us, and sign them quickly.
But I believe that is guesswork. And guesswork at a time when we need facts.
One fact is this: it can take years to strike trade deals. The Canada-EU deal took 7 years and it’s still not implemented.
And that’s ignoring the fact that many of these countries may not even start negotiations until they know what relationship we have with Europe once we’ve left.
What would happen to British jobs and business in that time?
Here’s another fact: if Britain voted to leave, there’s a process under Article 50 of the European Treaty which would give us two years before all the trade deals we have through the EU – with over 50 countries – would fall away.
Are those who advocate leaving saying they would’ve sorted out individual replacements with each territory and each bloc in that time?
Fact number 3: countries like America have said they would much rather do regional trade deals like the one we are currently negotiating.
As the US Trade Representative put it: the United States is “not particularly in the market for free trade agreements with individual countries”.
Now look what happens to those countries who do such deals.
When Switzerland signed a trade deal with China, they had to scrap tariffs on nearly all their Chinese imports, while some Chinese tariffs would only be dismantled over 10 or even 15 years.
So this is the question: if we left Europe, who would we sign trade deals with? How long would that take? What would be the terms? How can we be sure no jobs would go in the meantime?
We can’t.
A vote to leave is a leap in the dark.
Families’ finances
So that’s what our membership of a reformed Europe offers: certainty.
Tariffs abolished. Non-tariff barriers eliminated. A deeper single market completed. Trade deals with the rest of the world signed.
Again, as Mark Carney has said, our continued membership reinforces our economic dynamism and leaving as he put it would be “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability”.
When it comes to the single market, we can chart the sort of positive gains we will be looking at as it completes the reforms I’ve secured.
The single market in services could see GDP increase by 2 per cent, action on e-commerce through the digital single market could be worth 1.7 per cent of EU GDP and those forthcoming trade deals could boost our GDP, too.
These gains cannot be dismissed.
Every one per cent increase in GDP is equivalent to more than an additional £275 per person.
And this extra growth could also mean billions more in tax receipts to spend on our schools, our hospitals, our army and our police.
So this is the bright future we could have in a reformed Europe.
Let me be clear: this isn’t the whole economic case for membership; it is just the gains we can get from staying in a reformed single market – there will be fuller Treasury analysis in the coming weeks.
But it does show the sort of gains our membership of a reformed European Union could deliver.
And compare that to the alternatives.
We’ve had some of the key leave campaigners admitting various things about leaving Europe in the last few weeks.
They’ve said it might lead to job losses.
That there would be dislocation, uncertainties and costs.
That there would definitely be some problems, even pain.
That they cannot offer any guarantee that jobs wouldn’t be lost.
That there could be higher tariffs.
And that there would be an economic shock.
It’s worth remembering what a shock really means.
It means pressure on the pound sterling. It means jobs being lost. It means mortgage rates might rise. It means businesses closing. It means hardworking people losing their livelihoods.
For those who advocate leaving, lost jobs and a dented economy might be collateral damage, or a price worth paying.
For me, they’re not. They never are. Because there’s nothing more important that protecting people’s financial security.
That’s why I believe we are better off in.
Conclusion
And it’s not just me. So many who create jobs and growth in this country agree.
Look back over the past 3 weeks.
Carmakers, like BMW, Ford, and yes, Vauxhall.
Telecoms companies, like BT and Vodafone.
Aerospace manufacturers, like Rolls Royce and Airbus.
Retailers, like Asda and Mothercare.
Pharmaceutical companies, like AstraZeneca and GSK.
Travel firms, like EasyJet and Tui.
And our biggest investors, like O2 and General Electric.
Together, along with a whole host of other businesses, all have said we are better off in.
Now those on the other side may plead it’s all a conspiracy of scaremongering.
I would ask yourself: is it?
Because these companies are actually making a positive case – positive arguments about jobs and investment but they also know how fragile the global economy is – and how perilous it would be for Britain to burn bridges with our biggest trading partner.
So this is the message I want to go out – to the eurosceptic and the agnostic; the floating voter and the first-time voter:
Taking advantage of the single market is one of the ways this country has made itself great.
As I’ve said before, I don’t love Brussels; I love Britain – and my mission is to make it greater still.
Looking at what the experts say and the way the evidence points and viewing it all in the light of our financial security, and what makes our people better off, I believe the best way to do that is by remaining in a reformed Europe.
And I hope that’s what we’ll do – for the sake of every family in our great nation.
Thank you.
OPINION
Enhancing Workplace Safety And Social Protection: The Role Of The Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010
Presentation by
Barr. Oluwaseun M. Faleye
Managing Director/Chief Executive, Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund
At the 65th Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)
International Conference Centre, Enugu
24th August 2025
Introduction
Distinguished colleagues, esteemed members of the Bench and Bar, fellow policymakers, captains of industry, and ladies and gentlemen.
It is both an honour and a privilege to stand before this distinguished assembly at the 65th Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association. The NBA has, over decades, remained the conscience of our nation, a defender of rights, a champion of justice, and a custodian of the democratic ideals that gives meaning to our collective existence.
The theme of this year’s conference, “Stand Out, Stand Tall!” is more than a slogan. It is a call to courage, to excellence, and to visionary leadership. It challenges us, as thought-leaders and nation-builders, to lift our society beyond mediocrity and to confront the existential issues that hinder Nigeria’s march toward greatness.
I stand today to speak directly to one of those existential issues, the safety of our workplaces and the social protection of our workers. These are not peripheral concerns; they touch the very core of our humanity, our economy, and our pursuit of sustainable national development.
In focusing on “Enhancing Workplace Safety and Social Protection: The Role of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010,” I aim to situate our conversation at the intersection of law, labour, and human dignity.
Work is not merely an economic activity; it is central to human identity and social progress. Through work, families are sustained, communities are developed, and nations are built. The dignity of labour, so deeply rooted in our cultural and constitutional ethos, affirms that every worker deserves protection, not just in the fruit of their labour, but also in the very process of labouring.
Yet, the paradox remains: while work empowers, it can also endanger. The same factories that generate wealth can expose workers to industrial hazards; the same oil rigs that earn foreign exchange can subject workers to occupational illnesses; the same construction sites that build our cities can also claim lives in accidents.
This paradox highlights the urgency of workplace safety and the necessity of social protection. It is not enough for a nation to pursue economic growth; such growth must be inclusive, humane, and protective of those whose sweat oils the engines of development.
The Global Context: Grim Realities of Workplace Hazards
Permit me to share with you the grim realities of workplace hazards, and these statistics are not mine; they were provided by the International Labour Organization:
Each year, over 2.8 million workers die from occupational accidents and work-related diseases.
Over 374 million workers suffer non-fatal injuries annually, many of which lead to long-term disabilities or reduced quality of life.
The economic cost of poor occupational safety and health is estimated at nearly 4% of global GDP annually, a staggering burden on productivity, healthcare systems, and social welfare.
These statistics are not just numbers; they are human lives, families disrupted, and dreams shattered. They remind us that workplace safety is not a privilege to be enjoyed by a few but a right owed to all.
Within the context of our own country, our peculiar socio-economic realities make workplace safety and social protection even more urgent.
Data Gaps: Accurate national data on workplace accidents remains limited. However, the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund, through its Employees’ Compensation Scheme, continues to receive increasing claims from affected workers and employers.
High-Risk Sectors: Industries such as construction, oil and gas, and manufacturing remain prone to frequent and sometimes fatal workplace accidents. Poor adherence to safety standards, inadequate enforcement, and limited awareness exacerbate the problem.
Informal economy Vulnerability: With over 80% of Nigeria’s workforce engaged in the informal economy, millions of workers remain outside structured occupational safety nets, leaving them and their families highly vulnerable in the event of accidents or diseases.
Cultural and Institutional Weaknesses: In many workplaces, safety culture is weak. Employers often see safety compliance as a cost rather than an investment, while workers themselves may lack training or incentives to prioritize safety.
The outcome of these realities is clear: rising workplace accidents, preventable occupational illnesses, and increasing claims for compensation. More importantly, the loss of human capital undermines national productivity and deepens poverty traps for affected families.
Why Workplace Safety and Social Protection Matter
Workplace safety and social protection are not optional luxuries; they are fundamental pillars of social justice, human dignity, and economic sustainability.
They ensure dignity, peace of mind, and assurance that one’s labour will not become a source of tragedy for one’s family.
They enhance productivity, reduce downtime due to accidents, and foster industrial harmony.
They reduce the burden on healthcare systems, mitigate poverty, and enhance national competitiveness.
In essence, workplace safety and social protection are as much about human rights as they are about economic development. A nation that fails to protect its workers fails to protect its future.
The Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010: A Paradigm Shift
The enactment of the Employees’ Compensation Act (ECA), 2010 marked a watershed moment in Nigeria’s labour and social security landscape. It replaced the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a law that had long been criticized for its narrow scope, rigidity, and employer-centric bias.
For decades, Nigerian workers and their families bore the brunt of a compensation system that failed to adequately recognize the evolving realities of modern workplaces. The law operated within the framework of an industrial era that no longer reflected the complex dynamics of contemporary employment relationships. Workers were often left destitute after workplace accidents, while employers faced prolonged litigation that neither restored the injured nor secured industrial harmony.
The ECA 2010 emerged as both a legal reform and a moral commitment, aligning Nigeria with international best practices, especially as recommended by the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions on occupational safety, health, and social security.
1. Comprehensive Coverage
One of the most remarkable contributions of the ECA is its expansive scope.
It applies to all employers and employees across both the public and private sectors, creating a unified national standard.
It extends protection beyond physical accidents to include:
Occupational injuries sustained in the course of work.
Occupational diseases arising from exposure to harmful substances or hazardous environments.
Permanent and temporary disabilities, whether partial or total.
Mental health challenges linked to workplace stress, trauma, or hazards, an innovative inclusion that reflects global recognition of psychosocial risks.
By broadening its ambit, the ECA acknowledges the complex and evolving nature of work, ensuring that no worker is left behind simply because their injury or illness does not fit into a narrow definition.
2. Employer Contribution System
The ECA dismantled the inequitable structure of the past where individual employers bore sole liability for compensation. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, an employer had to directly compensate an injured worker, often leading to disputes, prolonged court cases, and financial strain.
In contrast, the ECA introduced a collective, pooled system where employers across sectors contribute to a central fund administered by the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund. The Fund ensures that resources are available upfront to address claims promptly, rather than waiting for the outcome of litigation.
The pooled risk model reflects the principle of social solidarity, spreading risks and costs across the economy, rather than isolating them within a single workplace.
This mechanism not only secures workers’ rights but also protects employers from the unpredictability of individual liability. It shifts the focus from blame to shared responsibility.
3. Quick and Fair Compensation
The ECA was deliberately designed to speed up and humanize the compensation process.
Injured workers are entitled to immediate medical treatment without the burden of proving employer negligence. Beyond treatment, workers receive physical rehabilitation, vocational training, and support for reintegration into the workforce.
In cases of permanent or temporary disability, the law guarantees structured financial support. Dependents of workers who lose their lives in workplace accidents receive death benefits, ensuring families are not plunged into poverty.
This no-fault principle, where workers are compensated regardless of negligence, removes the adversarial tension of litigation. It prioritizes healing, dignity, and security over legal wrangling.
4. The Social Security Dimension
Perhaps the most transformative feature of the ECA is its broad social security orientation. Unlike its predecessor, the Act is not limited to post-accident compensation but also embraces prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
5. A Balance between Rights and Responsibilities
The genius of the Employees’ Compensation Act lies in its balance.
For workers, it guarantees protection without the hurdles of litigation or the uncertainty of employer discretion. For employers, it eliminates the risk of crippling lawsuits and provides predictable contributions into a shared pool. For the nation, it strengthens social justice, reduces systemic poverty traps, and aligns Nigeria with international labour standards.
Thus, the ECA 2010 represents more than just legal reform, it is a paradigm shift towards a modern, inclusive, and humane labour ecosystem. It affirms that in Nigeria’s pursuit of growth, the lives and dignity of workers cannot be treated as expendable.
Current Realities and Challenges
Fifteen years after its enactment, the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 has undoubtedly transformed Nigeria’s labour compensation framework. The establishment of a no-fault, pooled compensation system has brought hope to thousands of workers and their families. Yet, as with most legal and policy reforms, the journey from law on paper to lived reality has been uneven.
While progress has been recorded in claims processing, accident coverage, and legal clarity, several persistent and emerging challenges continue to undermine the Act’s full impact.
Low Employer Compliance
One of the most pressing realities is incomplete employer compliance, especially among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs).
Despite being the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, accounting for over 80% of jobs and nearly 50% of GDP, many SMEs either fail to register with the NSITF or under-declare their workforce size and wage bills.
Reasons for non-compliance include limited awareness of legal obligations, perceived cost burden of contributions and weak enforcement and monitoring mechanisms.
The result is that millions of workers in SMEs remain outside the protective umbrella of the Act, leaving them vulnerable to poverty traps in cases of workplace accidents.
This compliance gap undermines the spirit of universality and inclusivity envisioned by the law.
Limited Awareness Among Workers and Employers
A large proportion of Nigerian employees remain unaware of their rights under the Act.
Many workers do not know they are entitled to compensation in cases of occupational injury or disease. In some cases, employers exploit this ignorance by discouraging claims or providing token settlements instead of due benefits.
Even among educated workers, there is often confusion between ECA entitlements and other social protection schemes like pensions or health insurance.
Awareness campaigns have been sporadic, with limited penetration outside major cities. For a country with over 70 million workers in the informal and formal sectors combined, sustained national enlightenment is essential and we are committed to doing that to ensure that Nigerian workers understand their rights and the benefits associated with complying with the Employee’s Compensation Act.
Under-Reporting of Workplace Accidents
Another major challenge is the systemic under-reporting of workplace accidents and occupational diseases.
Many employers fear that reporting incidents will attract sanctions, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage.
Workers themselves sometimes avoid reporting for fear of losing their jobs, stigmatization, or bureaucratic delays in accessing benefits. This results in a data gap, making it difficult for policymakers and regulators to accurately assess the scope of occupational risks in Nigeria.
For instance, while the International Labour Organization estimates that 2.8 million workers die globally every year from work-related causes, Nigeria’s official records capture only a fraction of actual cases. The absence of reliable, comprehensive data limits the country’s ability to design targeted interventions.
Changing Work Dynamics in a New Economy
The world of work is changing rapidly, and Nigeria is no exception. The ECA 2010, while progressive, must continuously adapt to these evolving realities.
Platforms like ride-hailing services, delivery apps, and freelance digital work create new categories of workers who often fall outside traditional employer-employee relationships.
As I have mentioned, over 80% of Nigerian workers operate in the informal economy, where workplace safety standards are often non-existent. Extending the ECA’s protections to this vast segment remains a daunting but necessary task.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated remote work adoption, raising new questions about what qualifies as a “workplace accident” when work is performed from home.
With automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence entering workplaces, new categories of hazards, such as ergonomic injuries, mental stress, or even cyber-related risks are emerging.
These shifts demand dynamic legal interpretation and possible amendments to ensure that the ECA remains relevant in a rapidly changing labour market.
These realities highlight the need for multi-sector collaboration, linking labour law enforcement with broader economic reforms, social welfare, and national development strategies.
The Role of Lawyers and Policymakers
The implementation and impact of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 cannot rest on the NSITF alone. Like every piece of transformative legislation, the ECA lives and breathes through the interpretation, advocacy, and enforcement carried out by lawyers, judges, and policymakers.
Apart from our expectation of you as advocates of the efficacy and importance of the Employees’ Compensation Scheme, the most crucial expectation we have of you lawyers and leaders of the bar here is to lead by example.
We must comply with the law ourselves. We must ensure that all law firms practicing law in Nigeria subscribe to the Employees’ Compensation Scheme.
As you all know, law practice, particularly those of our colleagues engaged in dispute resolution practices comes with its risks. Lawyers travel to different parts of this country practicing their trade, advocating and defending clients. These journeys come with risk.
For the corporate and commercial lawyers, they tend to sit for hours reviewing documents, negotiating agreements and also do a lot of traveling in the course of work. These long hours at work stations often leads back and spinal injuries.
Indeed, the pressure of work could sometimes lead not only to physical challenges but to mental stress as well. Yet, majority of our law firms are not complying with the Employees’ Compensation Scheme to give their employees, fellow lawyers the safety net the law prescribed and which they all deserve.
The NBA must do more and ensure that all law firms comply with the Employees’ Compensation Act to safeguard our workforce. And it is my hope that the Welfare Committee of the NBA will champion this initative.
We must ensure that evidence of compliance with the ECA becomes part of documentation for aspiring to be Senior Advocates. As part of the law firm inspection exercise towards the conferment of silk, I urge us to ask for evidence that law firms are complying with the Employees’ Compensation Act akin to our position on payment of pension obligations for lawyers.
Corporate lawyers are often the first point of contact for businesses seeking to understand their obligations under labour laws. It is therefore incumbent on them to educate employers, particularly SMEs on the necessity of compliance with the ECA, not only as a legal requirement but as a strategic business investment.
When disputes arise, lawyers must uphold the spirit of social justice embedded in the Act, ensuring that compensation claims are pursued diligently and without undue delay.
Beyond individual cases, the legal community must serve as advocates of systemic reform, engaging with government and civil society to strengthen workplace safety and employee protections.
The Nigerian Bar Association can serve as a bridge between policymakers and the workforce, ensuring that the law keeps pace with global best practices and local realities.
As to the role of the judiciary, we acknowledge that the courts play a pivotal role in giving life to the Act. Therefore, judicial interpretation must consistently reflect the protective, worker-centred philosophy of the ECA.
Landmark rulings can set precedents that discourage employers from evading responsibilities and embolden employees to seek justice without fear.
The judiciary must guard against narrow, technical interpretations that undermine the law’s purpose. Instead, it must elevate the principle that the protection of human dignity is paramount.
From the legislative perspective, our law makers must recognize that the labour market is evolving faster than ever before. Regular amendments to the ECA 2010, whether to address the gig economy, informal economy realities, or technological hazards, are necessary to maintain its relevance.
The ECA 2010, therefore, should not be viewed solely as a labour statute, but as a human rights instrument, a guarantee that every Nigerian worker deserves protection, dignity, and a safety net against the uncertainties of life.
The Future of Workplace Safety and Social Protection in Nigeria
Looking forward, the NSITF’s vision is to build a comprehensive social security architecture for Nigeria, with the ECA as its cornerstone. The Act laid the foundation, but the building of a resilient, inclusive, and future-ready system requires bold innovations.
The Fund is embracing technology-driven solutions to improve speed, transparency, and accountability.
Real-time reporting systems will allow employers and workers to instantly report accidents through digital platforms, ensuring quicker responses. Data analytics will enable predictive modelling, identify high-risk sectors and help prevent accidents before they happen.
E-certificates of compliance which we have already introduced, are reducing fraud and making compliance verification seamless.
The ECS’s future lies in creating innovative schemes tailored to suit the informal economy. Pilot projects are already exploring contributory micro-schemes that will allow even low-income workers to enjoy compensation and protection.
Extending coverage to the informal economy is not only a matter of justice but also of national productivity, since these workers drive much of Nigeria’s growth.
Compensation after injury is important, but prevention is better, cheaper, and more sustainable. The Fund is investing in workplace safety audits to identify risks early, we are undertaking compliance inspections with deterrent sanctions for violators and enhancing our capacity through programs, training employers and employees on global best practices in occupational safety and health (OSH).
By fostering a culture of prevention, Nigeria can reduce workplace accidents and improve productivity across sectors.
Nigeria must continue to harmonize with international standards by ratifying and implementing relevant ILO conventions on occupational safety and health. We must learn from other countries with mature compensation frameworks and systems.
We must leverage partnerships with global organizations to build capacity, fund safety initiatives, and modernize systems. These sorts of global alignment ensures that Nigerian workers are not left behind in an increasingly interconnected labour market.
Conclusion
Distinguished colleagues, learned friends, ladies and gentlemen, the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 is more than a statute on the books. It is a covenant of dignity, a shield of protection, and a beacon of social justice for the Nigerian worker.
It represents a promise, that when a worker is injured, they will not be abandoned; when a family loses its breadwinner, they will not be thrown into despair; and when an employer invests in safety, they will be rewarded with loyalty, productivity, and peace.
To truly “Stand Out, Stand Tall,” as this conference theme challenges us, we must rise above rhetoric and build a society where no worker leaves home in fear that their daily bread could cost them their life, no child is forced out of school because an injured parent can no longer provide and no widow or widower is left destitute because justice was delayed or denied.
This is not just about labour law, it is about the soul of our nation. A society that protects its workers protects its future. A nation that neglects its workforce undermines its destiny.
The call before us today is clear.
Lawyers must be the vanguard of compliance and justice, using their knowledge to protect the vulnerable.
Policymakers must be visionaries, ensuring that our laws evolve with the realities of modern work.
Employers must see safety and social protection not as costs, but as investments in their people and their productivity.
And institutions like the NSITF must continue to lead with innovation, transparency, and courage.
If we do this, we will build more than safe workplaces, we will build a safer Nigeria. We will do more than compensate accidents, we will prevent them. We will not just write laws; we will write legacies.
Together, we can build a Nigeria where every citizen can stand out in excellence and stand tall in dignity.
Thank you.
May God bless our workers.
May God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Oluwaseun Faleye
Managing Director/CE
Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund
OPINION
US Visa Applicants And Social Media Disclosure: A Risky Overreach With Dire Consequences For Nigerians
By Olufemi Soneye
The United States has recently implemented a sweeping immigration policy requiring nearly all visa applicants to disclose their social media handles and digital histories. Framed as a tool to bolster national security, counter terrorism, and curb cybercrime, the measure may appear reasonable on paper. But for Nigerians and many others from countries with vibrant, digitally active populations the consequences are troubling and far-reaching.
Nigeria’s dynamic online culture is marked by satire, political commentary, and spirited debate. In this context, posts that are humorous or culturally specific may be misunderstood by foreign officials unfamiliar with the nuances of local discourse. What may be a harmless meme or satirical remark in Nigeria could be wrongly interpreted as extremist, subversive, or fraudulent by US immigration authorities.
This does not merely pose a risk to individual visa applicants. It threatens broader societal values such as freedom of expression, cultural authenticity, and civic engagement. It also risks further straining US–Nigeria relations at a time when collaboration and mutual respect are more important than ever.
The US government maintains that social media activity provides valuable insight into a visa applicant’s character, affiliations, and potential risks. In an age where radicalization and misinformation can proliferate online, there is some logic to this argument. However, in practice, it opens the door to arbitrary interpretations, biased judgments, and significant invasions of privacy.
Disturbing cases have already emerged. A Norwegian tourist was recently denied entry into the United States after officials discovered a meme referencing US Vice President J.D. Vance on his phone. In another case, a Nigerian businesswoman with a valid visa was turned away at a US border after immigration officers reviewed her Instagram messages and claimed her online activity contradicted the nature of her visa. These examples illustrate how subjective and potentially discriminatory the enforcement of this policy can be.
Adding to the concern, the US has launched a pilot program requiring visa applicants from select countries to pay a $15,000 bond. The initiative, which began with Malawi and Zambia, reportedly targets nations with high visa overstay rates and could be expanded. It sends a chilling message: that citizens of certain countries are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.
For Nigerians, the implications are especially severe. Privacy is the first casualty. Applicants must now submit their digital footprints including personal conversations, private networks, and online affiliations to a foreign government. Freedom of expression is the next victim. Young Nigerians, who make up the majority of users on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Instagram, may begin self-censoring out of fear that political opinions or cultural commentary could jeopardize their chances of traveling or studying abroad.
This policy disproportionately impacts the very demographic that is driving Nigeria’s innovation, creativity, and international reputation. Students, entrepreneurs, artists, and professionals, the most globally engaged Nigerians are now the most vulnerable to misinterpretation and arbitrary visa denials. What constitutes a “red flag” is alarmingly subjective: a meme, a retweet, or a political statement could be enough to trigger rejection, with little recourse for appeal.
There are broader implications for the Nigerian diaspora and global mobility. Social media has long served as a bridge connecting Nigerians abroad with their homeland, facilitating civic dialogue, cultural exchange, and philanthropic engagement. If digital expression becomes a liability, this bridge may weaken, silencing a vital global voice and undermining transnational ties.
Moreover, the policy risks reinforcing damaging stereotypes. Nigerians already contend with international biases linking the country to fraud or instability. A policy that scrutinizes their digital lives under a security lens could deepen mistrust, alienate young professionals, and diminish goodwill toward the United States.
The global repercussions are also concerning. If the US, a global standard-setter in immigration policy, normalizes the collection and evaluation of applicants’ private digital histories, other countries may follow suit. This would set a dangerous precedent, where opportunities for global mobility depend not on merit or intent, but on an algorithmic analysis of social media behavior often devoid of cultural context.
National security is undeniably important. But it must be balanced with fairness, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights. This policy represents a dangerous overreach one that sacrifices privacy, chills free expression, and penalizes those who should be celebrated for their global engagement.
If the United States is truly committed to fostering partnerships with countries like Nigeria, it must recognize that sustainable security cannot be built on suspicion and surveillance. Instead, it should embrace and empower the voices of Nigeria’s youth, educated, innovative, and globally connected who could be among America’s strongest allies in the decades ahead.
**Soneye is a seasoned media strategist and former Chief Corporate Communications Officer of NNPC Ltd, known for his sharp political insight, bold journalism, and high-level stakeholder engagement across government, corporate, and international platforms**
Date: August 6, 2025
OPEN LETTER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Subject: A Nation in Distress — A Critical Assessment of the Failed Tinubu-Led APC Government
Fellow Nigerians,
As the South-South Volunteer Youth Spokesman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), I write with a heavy heart and a deep sense of patriotic duty to call attention to the rapid and disturbing collapse of governance under the leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC). What we are witnessing is not just a national crisis — it is a complete breakdown of systems and values that once gave our country hope.
In every measurable sector of our national life — the economy, security, food security, infrastructure, governance, and social cohesion — this administration has failed woefully. The consequences are no longer abstract statistics; they are lived realities for millions of Nigerians.
1. Poverty and Hunger at Unprecedented Levels
Today, Nigeria holds the tragic record as the poverty capital of the world. Families go entire days without food. Prices of basic food items such as rice, garri, yam, and bread have more than tripled. Hunger is now a weapon, a daily battle for the poor and even the middle class.
2. Hyperinflation and a Crumbling Economy
The naira has lost over 70% of its value in just over a year. With inflation well above 35%, the average Nigerian can no longer afford rent, fuel, transportation, or medical care. Small businesses are shutting down en masse, while unemployment surges. There is no cash in circulation, no confidence in the banking system, and no trust in leadership.
3. Insecurity Across the Nation
From Sokoto to Delta, Borno to Enugu, no region is spared. Banditry, kidnappings, assassinations, ritual killings, and armed robbery are daily news. Our security forces are overwhelmed and underpaid, while leadership at the top offers empty reassurances and photo-ops.
4. Neglect of Contractors and Economic Sabotage
It is both shocking and unacceptable that Federal Government contractors who executed infrastructure and service-based projects for national development have not been paid for over nine months. In June 2025, more than 5,000 local contractors took to the streets in Abuja to protest non-payment. Many of them are now bankrupt. Some have tragically lost their lives due to stress and untreated medical conditions resulting from financial ruin.
Let it be known that these contractors are the backbone of infrastructure and service delivery in Nigeria. When they are denied payment, schools, hospitals, roads, and water systems remain unfinished. Workers are laid off. More Nigerians fall into poverty. The economy suffers — all because this administration refuses to do the bare minimum: honour its obligations.
5. A Government that Refuses to Listen
President Tinubu and the APC have shown zero regard for public opinion, professional advice, or human suffering. Rather than admit failure and course-correct, they weaponize propaganda, distract with divisive rhetoric, and gaslight the nation with false promises.
Our Stand as ADC Youth Volunteers
As youth leaders of the ADC in the South-South and across the country, we reject this incompetence, this deception, and this collapse. The future of Nigeria cannot be mortgaged to leaders who are incapable of managing crises, who reward loyalty over competence, and who treat Nigerians as expendable political pawns.
We call on all well-meaning Nigerians, civil society organizations, religious leaders, and traditional rulers to rise and speak truth to power. The time for silence is over. A new Nigeria cannot emerge from a foundation of betrayal, hunger, and bloodshed.
Enough is Enough.
Signed,
Dr. Emaluji Michael Sunday
South-South Volunteer Youth Spokesman
African Democratic Congress (ADC)
Email: adcvolunteers.ng@gmail.com
Tel: +234 8065667809
