FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR CASUAL WORKERS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NIGERIA AND GHANA

Abstract

The rise of casualisation as a cost-cutting strategy across Sub-Saharan Africa has generated
serious issues between employer flexibility and workers’ fundamental rights. This article compares the
legal protection and practical enforcement of freedom of association (FoA) and collective bargaining (CB)
rights for casual workers in Nigeria and Ghana. Using a comparative legal research methodology, it
analyses constitutional provisions, legislative frameworks, judicial decisions and relevant ILO
Conventions, specifically Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The article argues that Ghana provides a clearer
statutory framework under the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651), particularly its Part X provisions, which define
casual work, set a six-month regularisation threshold and guarantee the right to join trade unions.
However, Nigeria relies heavily on judicial activism by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) to
fill legislative gaps, as the Labour Act 2004 contains no definition of casual labour and no automatic
regularisation mechanism. The comparative analysis reveals some convergences in constitutional
guarantees but significant divergences in statutory specificity and institutional enforcement. The article
recommends the immediate amendment of the Nigerian Labour Act to define casual labour and introduce
a regularisation threshold modelled on the Ghanaian approach, the strengthening of labour inspection
units and the expansion of ECOWAS-level coordination to advance a regional decent work agenda.