‘THE FACTORIES ACT: ITS CONTINUED RELEVANCE AS AN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

ed
AND SAFETY REGULATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE CHALLENGES OF THE
COVID-19 PANDEMIC’

BY

iew
Chinonyerem Ini-Ememobong
Akwa Ibom State Polytechnic, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State

Emaediong Ofonime Akpan

ev
School of Post Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Uyo, Akwa Ibom
State

r
Abstract

er
A lot of unforeseen changes to the workplace and established norms about
how employees can deliver on their employment obligations have been
occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some of the changes that
pe
have occurred may remain in place long after the pandemic is over.
Employers are now saddled with devising strategies to assist their employees to
manage their wellbeing so as to enable them to stay safe and healthy in order
to continue to work. Many offices have open space arrangements with people
ot

seating across each other and sharing business enabling machines, with little
room for social distancing. Presently, organisations are faced with re-arranging
their workspace to ensure public health requirements while most organisations
tn

have taken measures such as temperature checking and use of sanitisers. These
will be inadequate to ensure occupational health and safety because some
people are asymptomatic and are super carriers of the virus without any visible
symptom that can easily be detected to be isolated. This paper addresses issues
of occupational health and safety in the light of the post Covid-19 era.
rin

Key words: occupational health and safety; covid-19; employer; employee

;Factories Act
ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 1. Introduction

ed
The health crisis generated by the global pandemic of COVID-19 has

affected all economies with direct impact on the health and safety of workers.

iew
Most businesses are operating on an “essential services mode” and isolation and

social distance measures are in place to limit the spread of the virus. Although

ev
some economic sectors and companies have been able to implement remote

work policies, an important number of workers continue to commute to their

r
workplaces (e.g. workers in the health and public sectors, commerce, transport,

agriculture).i
er
The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the world of work. While
pe
infections are continuing to rise in many parts of the world, some countries are

now working to sustain declining rates and reactivating their economies.

Governments, employers and workers and their respective organizations have a

ot

key role to play in reinforcing the progress made in stemming infection rates by
tn

ensuring a safe return to work. This requires cooperation and coordinated

action, as unsafe work practices anywhere pose a threat to health everywhere.

rin

The ILO Convention No. 155 (Occupational Safety and Health),

Convention No. 161 (Occupational Health Services) and Convention No. 187
ep

(OSH Promotional Framework) are the International Labour Standards that

provide a reference to review the rights and duties of governments, workers and
Pr

employers in times of COVID-19. These conventions place responsibility on

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 employers to adopt prevention and protection measures to minimise

ed
professional risks, provide appropriate protective clothing and equipment,

provide adequate training and information, and consult workers. For their part,

iew
workers must cooperate with the employer to comply with preventive measures,

abiding by security measures and using safety devices and protective

sequipment. Convention No. 155 recognises the right of workers to withdraw

ev
from work in case of imminent and serious danger at the workplace. In 2019, the

ILO announced the elaboration of a proposal to develop a new instrument in

r
the field of biological risk. The current crisis is a unique opportunity to reassess the

right and principle

er
central role of occupational safety and health and its eventual recognition as a

fundamental at work, in accordance with the

pe
recommendation of the World Commission on the Future of Work.

It is pertinent that before returning to work, workers must be confident that

ot

they will not be exposed to undue risks. Workers must feel safe at their
tn

workplaces, both from risks directly related to COVID-19, and indirect risks,

including psychosocial issues and ergonomic risks related to working in awkward

positions or with poor facilities when working from home. They should have the
rin

right to remove themselves from any situation which they have reasonable

justification to believe presents an imminent and serious danger to their life or

ep

health and should be protected from any undue consequences.ii

Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 2. Occupational Health and Safety in Nigeria

ed
The inception of OSH regulations/bills in Nigeria runs from the introduction

of the Labour Act of 1974 to the passage of the Labour, Safety, Health and

iew
Welfare Bill of 2012 (which awaits the presidential assent).iii During the above

period, the Factories Act of 1987 (now known as Factories Act of 1990), which is

ev
a substantial revision of the Factories Act of 1958 (i.e. colonial legislation), the

Workman‟s Compensation Act of 1987, the Labour Act of 1990, the Workman‟s

r
Compensation Act of 2004, the Employee‟s Compensation Act of 2011 (which

repeals the Workman‟s Compensation Act of 2004) were introduced. Some of

er
these laws are criticised as inadequate.iv Extant studies on Factories Act has
pe
been carried out as labour issue whilst intentionally avoiding the need to discuss

occupational health and safety in strict terms. On whether this is because and

attempt to discuss occupational health and safety might lure the researcher
ot

into discussing issues in the medical field.v This research differs on this opinion as
tn

the discussion on the relevance of the factories act cannot be put in a water

tight compartment away from the topic of occupational health and safety.
rin

Occupational health and safety (OHS) as a matter of public concern

traditionally comes into focus when there are major disasters. This dimension is in
ep

disagreement with some of the central purposes of occupational vi health and

safety regulation, which relate to the prevention of occupational accidents and

Pr

diseases. Regulatory mechanisms that are in place to achieve these purposes

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 are mostly based on risk assessments and control measures that have to be

ed
constantly assessed and re-assessed. It therefore requires a positive health and

safety culture and consciousness within the workplace. So far, the efficacy and

iew
accountability of The Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity in the

enforcement of OSH regulations in Nigeria are evidently questionable and poor,

especially in the construction industry. Perhaps, this is because OSH enforcement

ev
is not the principal practice in Nigeria. This is exemplified by studies by

researchers that demonstrate the ineffective and nonfunctional state of the

r
OSH regulatory system in Nigeria.vii The series of collapse of construction sites,

er
and high accident and fatality rates inter alia in Nigeria are glaring. Given the

recent increased infrastructural development in Nigeria, which will worsen the

pe
already failed OSH as accidents, injuries and fatalities will increase and the role

of effective enforcement in achieving optimum OSH, it is pertinent to investigate

ot

the salient causes of the poor level of OSH enforcement in Nigeria, so as to

improve OSH; deplorably, researchers have overlooked this area. Against these
tn

backdrops, this paper examines the enforcement of OSH in Nigeria within the

framework of the factories Act. This is to provide for the lack of literature
rin

examining the factories act as being relevant in the 21st century. Most

importantly, this paper unearths the salient issues to enforcement of OSH in

ep

Nigeria and further examines them. It concludes by recommending ways of

improving the level of enforcement of OSH by stating that the onus of improving
Pr

OSH is on all stakeholders. There is a growing need for these recommendations

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 to be adapted in the light of current scientific knowledge, international practice

ed
and international norms.viii

3. Selected Sections of the Factories Act X-rayed

iew
1. Lack of Expertise and Standard Regulation

Section 3 of the Actix provides for the registration of new factories where

ev
the minister is satisfied that such premises is suitable for the said purposes.

It is worrisome to note that the act does not make the registration of new

r
factories subject to the adherence of certain general guidelines or

industry specific regulations. It can be right to state that the requirements

er
for the registration of a new factory lies embedded in the breast of the
pe
Minster of labour and productivity who may exercise his discretion

whenever he deems fit.

2. Non-Deterrent Fines and Punishment

ot

The occupation of a factory without approval is punishable by a fine of

tn

2000 or 12months imprisonment or both.x False entries, false declarations

and forgery are subject to a fine of 2000.xi Where worker dies

compensation is valued at 5,000. Other crimes not expressly provided in

rin

the actxii are punishable by a fine of 500. The fine for the obstruction of an

inspector is another paltry sum valued at 1,000.xiii Where accidents occur

ep

and are not reported a fine of 1000 is payable.xiv The monetary value of

these fines do not reflect modern day realities. These fines are too paltry
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 and have no real deterrent effect in the 21st century. These fines can be

ed
easily paid over and again as such defeating its purpose in the first place.

3. Lack of Expertise

iew
The appointment of members of the factories appeal board are

appointed on the basis of the minsters discretion.xv Such appointment is

ev
not specified to be an expert in any of the field incidental to the issues of

occupational health and safety. It is unclear what vital input members of

r
an appeal board with no special expertise would have to offer when

matters come before them. This provisions appears to be a tool for the
er
political class to compensate their loyalists. Furthermore, it is unclear how
pe
this board without the membership of a trade union will serve the interest

of workers and not the minster who is their „employer.‟

4. Skilled Manpower
ot

In-experienced workers are allowed to work under supervision.xvi This

tn

provision may have been rationalised by the lack of adequate skilled

manpower in the days following the colonial dispensation. It may have

rin

also been justified by the need to train Nigerians to take over existing

factories considering the exit of the colonialists. Today this isn‟t the case as
ep

the number of skilled persons has grown considerably. Therefore, allowing

in-experienced workers work at factories, places other workers at great

Pr

risk.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 5. Environmental Protection

ed
The exhaustion of dangerous fumes in factories appears to be without

regard to the effect of such on the environment.xvii The concern of the

iew
factory act seems to be with the factory workers hence it stipulates that

the workers wear apparatus necessary to protect them from dangerous

fumes. This is in disregard to the glaring fact that these workers still form

ev
part of a larger society who are affected by this fumes.xviii These provisions

run contrary to the modern day environmental standards. They pose risks

r
to the environment and the persons living in it. The exhaustion of fumes

er
without any attempt to ensure its purification or reduction in toxic levels

goes contrary to sustainable development goals.

pe
6. Health and Safety Education
ot

The Act in an attempt to protect to workers specifically states that,

protective clothing should be worn where the work area demands so.xix
tn

The mere protection of workers with clothes or apparatus without

provisions for medical checks appears to be inadequate. Considering the

rin

severity of exposure to some radioactive toxic rays, in some factories this

provision in the act can be said to be inadequate and not sufficient

ep

protection in the 21st century. The act also makes provision for first aid

boxes and no provision for on-hand medical personnel.xx One might

Pr

wonder what the effectiveness of first aid boxes would be to factory

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 workers who have no formal training on safety. It is therefore inadequate

ed
to ensure the provision of first aid boxes with no one with the required

knowledge to handle emergencies considering the fact that some

iew
factories are in remote areas far from civilization.xxi As regards industrial

disease the act does provide for notices while omitting the need for

specific regulations for quarantine and closure.

ev
7. Power of Inquiry/ Definition of Factory

Where there are large scale deaths or accidents a Commission of inquiry

r
may inquire into such occurrences. It is troubling to note that the purpose

er
of such inquiry is for the purposes of recommendation to ensure such

actions as would prevent any such accident in the future. The commission
pe
has no power to make binding recommendations. This may be the reason

which a major disaster like the Synagogue church collapse have escaped
ot

liability. Stretched further it is also to be noted that the interpretation

section of the act excludes construction sites from the ambit of the
tn

concept „factory‟ hence another leeway for the lack of accountability.

The strict definition of factory constructions sites in the interpretation

rin

sectionxxii does not include works of engineering construction.xxiii

Meanwhile the engineering construction industry possesses the highest risk

ep

factor to the worker yet, it is removed from the purview of the factory act

even though section 8 of the act gives the minister power to extend the
Pr

application of the Act.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 4 The Factories Act versus The Labour Safety and Health Bill: The 2Ist Century

ed
Legislation

The Labour, Safety, Health and Welfare Bill of 2012 though without force of

iew
law is the 21st century counterpart seeking to replace the factories act. It has

become necessary to examine the factories act against the provisions of the

ev
LSHW bill seeking to replace the factories act. The Factories Act applies to all

premises that fall within its definition of „factories‟.xxiv The Factories Act of 1987

r
has been criticised for its restrictive definition of factories which does not include

the construction industry in the definition of its premisesxxv. Factories are defined

as ;
er
pe
‘[a]ny premises in which or within which, or within the close or curtilage or
precincts of which one person is, or more persons are, employed in any process
for or incidental to any of the following purposes, namely-
(a) The making of any article or of part of any article; or
ot

(b) The altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, or washing, or the

breaking up or demolition of any article; or
tn

(c) The adapting for sale of any article, being premises in which, […] the
work is carried on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain and to or over
which the employer of the person or persons employed herein has the right of
access or control; […] and in which ten or more persons are employed”.xxvi
rin

By section 87(3) of the Factories Act the definition of factories extends the

application of that Act to workplaces other than factories.xxvii The definition of

ep

factories under the LSHW bill includes the construction industry in the definition of

its premises However, some authors disagree and state that the Factories Act
Pr

does not apply to the construction industry, for example.xxviii Section 87(3) reads:

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 Any workplace in which, with the permission of or under agreement with the

ed
owner or occupier, ten or more persons carry on any work which would
constitute the workplace a factory if the persons therein were in the
employment of the owner or occupier, shall be deemed to be a factory for the
purpose of this Act, and in the case of any such workplace, the provisions of this

iew
Act shall apply as if the owner or occupier of the workplace were the occupier
of the factory and the persons working therein were persons employed in the
factory.

In the view of this research, all section 87(3) does is to provide for those

ev
instance where a workplace is housed in premises that belongs to an owner or

occupier that is not the employees‟ employer. This subsection is necessary

r
because of the centrality of the premises in the definition of what constitutes a

er
factory. The premises-based scope of application of the Factories Act is clearly

outdated and does not take account of modern-day realities such as travel for
pe
work, working at clients‟ premises and working from home. This mode of

determining the coverage of the legislation also means that large sections of
ot

the informal economy are excluded from the ambit of the Act. In stark contrast,

the LSHW Bill states that it applies to all workplaces, employees and employers
tn

except those whose Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) conditions are

governed by specific international agreements or diplomatic conventions. xxix It

rin

also extends to self-employed persons.xxx However, these extensions of the

scope of coverage are not altogether unproblematic. The scope of application

ep

of the LSHW Bill is so extensive and not clearly defined, it will require large

injections of resources in terms of multidisciplinary workers and increased

Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 budgets, which may not be available.xxxi In addition, there may be conflicts with

ed
other agencies over jurisdiction in respect of OHS. xxxii

In keeping with its origins in a craft-based economy,xxxiii the Factories Act

iew
imposes specific duties on employers in respect of the physical environment

only. Duties in respect of health relate to, inter alia, cleanliness, ventilation,

ev
lighting and ablution facilities. Duties in respect of safety include those dealing

with the safe use of prime movers, machinery and steam boilers. This part of the

r
Act also addresses safe means of access to, and a safe, workplace, as well as

safety precautions in respect of fires, explosives and other dangerous fumes and
er
substances. Welfare duties imposed on employers include the provision of
pe
drinking water, washing facilities, first aid facilities or, alternatively, what is

referred to as an ambulance room. While the Minister is accorded the power to

issue a list of occupational diseases, no specific mention is made anywhere of

ot

psychosocial hazards.
tn

The most commonly reported occupational diseases include

“conjunctivitis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis [and] musculoskeletal disorders”.xxxiv

rin

The LSHW Bill is more amenable than the Factories Act to the inclusion of

psychosocial hazards and risks within its ambit. Employer duties that may be
ep

interpreted in ways that make provision for psychosocial hazards and risks

include, among others, ensuring a workplace that is safe and without risks to
Pr

health,xxxv systems of work that are safe and without risk to health xxxvi and

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 providing training and information to employees and health and safety

ed
representatives.xxxvii

The enforcement mechanisms provided for in the Factories Act are

iew
factory inspectors and sanctions for contraventions as contained in the Act.

These are all external to the organisations to which the Factories Act applies.

ev
Inspectors are granted wide powers of inspection, search and seizure. However,

consistent criticisms have pointed to the weak monitoring and enforcement of

r
OHS in Nigeria.xxxviii By 2010, only 60 factory inspectors operated in the whole of

Nigeria.xxxix Abubakar notes that the Inspectorate Division seems to be grossly

er
underfunded.xlThese criticisms are echoed by the ILO, which attributes this state
pe
of affairs to “defective development options, political unwillingness, inadequate

funding of factory and labour inspectorates, capacity gaps in training for

factory and labour inspectorates and inadequate funding for monitoring and
ot

evaluation”.xli The fines that can be imposed for contraventions of the Act are
tn

relatively low and employers, especially large companies, may not be deterred

by these sanctions. One example is that a contravention of the Act that causes

death or injury will be an offence punishable by the imposition of imprisonment

rin

of no longer than two years, a fine not exceeding N5000 or a combination of

imprisonment and a fine.xlii Another example is that failure to report an incident

ep

attracts a maximum fine of N1000.

Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 The LSHW Bill seeks to rectify at least some of the aforementioned

ed
deficiencies in respect of monitoring and enforcement. It provides for workplace

health and safety representatives and health and safety committees in similar

iew
ways to the South African OHSA.xliii It therefore foresees that employers and

employees will take responsibility for health and safety policy, planning,

implementation, monitoring and enforcement. In addition to health and safety

ev
representatives at workplace level, the LSHW Bill also provides for the

establishment of a National Council for Occupational Safety and Health

r
(NCOSH), which will be the primary regulatory body and enforcement

er
agency.xliv The Council will be supervised by a Governing Board that will be

constituted of 25 members representing federal ministries, state governments,

pe
employers‟ organisations, professional bodies or civil society organisations for

occupational safety and health and the Executive Secretary of the Council.xlv
ot

A noticeable omission is representation on the Council for workers. A

tn

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is provided for in

order to conduct OSH research to complement the NCOSH.xlvi The NIOSH has to

identify and recommend OHS standards, regulations and policies to prevent

rin

occupational injuries and diseases.xlvii Both organisations are mandated to

undertake research and development on OHS, and to arrange for education,

ep

training and what is termed „public enlightenment programme‟.xlviii These

mandates may be of particular importance in relation to psychosocial hazards

Pr

and risks, especially in view of the fact that psychology is relatively nascent in

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 Nigeria. It is therefore gratifying that section 96 of the Bill makes specific

ed
reference to research on psychological factors that may impact on health and

safety. The LSHW Bill also provides for more stringent penalties for

iew
noncompliance with its provisions. Employers who contravene the Bill and

thereby cause death or injury will be guilty of an offence and, upon conviction,

may be liable for a term of imprisonment no shorter than 3 years, a fine of not

ev
less than five million (14,128.80 EUR), or both such imprisonment and a fine.xlix

Failure to report an incident will attract a term of imprisonment of not more than

r
3 years or a fine of not less than one million (2825.75 EUR), or both such

imprisonment and a fine.l er

pe
The LSHW Bill seems to be predominantly prescriptive in that it includes

extensive provisions on what duty holders must do, much in the same way that

the Factories Act does. An alternative approach focuses on goal-setting, sets

ot

general targets and shifts the onus of proving compliance to duty holders. This
tn

feature of the Bill potentially has adverse consequences, including mere box-

ticking compliance as opposed to conscious compliance, disincentivising

agency and responsibility on the part of organisational actors and stifling

rin

innovative inputs from internal role players who may have a better appreciation

of the health and safety challenges faced by particular organisations. It further

ep

fails to take advantage of the fact that goal-setting approaches tend to place

less onerous burdens on regulators in respect of technical proficiency. For

Pr

instance, the Labour, Safety, Health and Welfare Bill of 2012 in Nigeria involves

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 the participation of the Nigerian Institute of Safety Professionals, National

ed
Council for Occupational Safety and Health, OSH committees, safety and

health representatives, employers, research institutes, principal contractors and

iew
the education sector. It places due responsibilities on OSH committees and the

safety & health representatives at grass-roots by having them monitor, regulate

and maintain the safety of the employees in the workplace. The logic here is

ev
that OSH is the responsibility of all; as such, the Bill seeks to indulge the

participation of all; perhaps, by aiming to be comprehensive and avoiding

r
some limitations of the existing Factories Act.

5. Conclusion
er
pe
This paper examined the OSH regulations in Nigeria. It demonstrated the

ineffective nature of the enforcement of OSH regulatory protocols in Nigeria.

The paper also established a conscious view by authors that the absence of
ot

effective enforcement of OSH regulations in Nigeria by those responsible and

tn

the authority in particular motivates the call for effective self-regulatory

enforcement system to be adopted. Given the rapid economic growth and

rin

infrastructural development in Africa and Nigeria in particular, the absence of

the state involvement in OSH promotion and enforcement is of great concern.

ep

Therefore, requires prompt attention otherwise the economic growth may be

hampered. Likewise, organisations should understand the importance and

Pr

benefits of compliance with OSH in the work environment as an enabler towards

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 increased safety, productivity and competitive advantage as well as reduction

ed
in accident and fatality reduction. Above all the consequences of tarnished

images of the organisation and that of the country at large should be taken into

iew
consideration. Against this background the factories act was examined as to its

effectiveness in the 21st century. Especially, with the digital world where growing

application of information technology (social network), which delivers

ev
information on the instant can damage the reputation of nations and industries

at large. While recognising the impact of economic growth and infrastructural

r
development in Nigeria, this paper has unearthed the fact that technology and

er
economic growth increases the hazards in workplaces; therefore, creating the

need to recognise some workplaces (example engineering construction sites)

pe
otherwise unrecognised by the existing OSH regulations and making the OSH

regulations outdated, thus, hindering OSH regulations enforcement.

ot

6. Recommendations
tn

1. The enforcement of OSH in Nigeria is poor and ineffective. With the high

level of infrastructural development in Nigeria, accident, injury and fatality

rin

rates will also increase if nothing is done to improve OSH in Nigeria. As a

result, more should be done to improve enforcement of OSH regulations,

ep

as this will improve the status of OSH. Below are some of the

recommendations of this paper for improving the enforcement of OSH in

Pr

Nigeria.

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 2. Recruitment and training of enforcement officers will improve

ed
enforcement of OSH regulations. The population of Nigeria is over

165million; however, the number of enforcement officers is very low.

iew
Therefore, if more trained professionals are recruited and trained as OSH

inspectors and enforcers, that will boost OSH enforcement in Nigeria. In

the absence of proper enforcement of OSH regulations, organisations

ev
should adopt self-regulatory style of enforcement, as optimum OSH will

improve the images of the orgainsations, and enable the organisations to

r
maximise profit. Enforcement of OSH regulations at local level is surely a

er
way of improving OSH in Nigeria. Local government authorities should be

involved in the enforcement of OSH regulations as done in the UK.

pe
Currently, the planning departments of many local government councils

ensure that all buildings in the local government have approved building
ot

plans. A similar department made up of trained OSH inspectors should be

set up to carry out inspection of workplaces at local level. As adequate

tn

information is vital in ensuing optimum OSH, provisions for adequate OSH

information is pertinent, perhaps through information technology: mobile

rin

phone technological means of reporting accidents and unsafe practices

can be adopted in Nigeria.

ep

3. This paper also recommends the development and adoption of

Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) as applicable in the UK, as they will

Pr

help in compliance and preventive (i.e. proactive) enforcement of OSH

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 regulations. The Enforcement authority can develop these ACOPs. ACOPs

ed
are approved guidelines that help organisations, individual and

employees to comply with OSH regulations and indirectly ensure

iew
proactive enforcement. OSH regulations should be updated and revised

as required to avoid having outdated regulations or regulations with

plenty limitations.

ev
4. Prevention and control measures must be a priority to protect workers

from exposure to biological risks and avoid new infections. The

r
management of the safety and health of workplaces should start with risk

er
assessments and the adoption of prevention and protection measures.

Strict protocols such as hygiene and sanitation measures, the use of

pe
adequate and sufficient personal protective equipment, the (re)design of

jobs and functions, the organization of work, preventive training and

ot

monitoring of the health of workers must be implemented. The sudden

shift to remote work for a great number of workers has increased risks
tn

because the workplace at home is inadequate. Inadequate ergonomics

as well as pre-existing health conditions can be exacerbated working

rin

from home
ep
Pr

i Safety and Health at Work in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic An ILO Caribbean Virtual
Roundtable, 28 April 2020. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro-lima/---
sro-port_of_spain/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_742309.pdf

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 ed
ii D Greenfield, ILO's Deputy Director-General for Policy Safety and Health at Work in the face of
the COVID-19 pandemic An ILO Caribbean Virtual Roundtable, 28 April 2020.
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---americas/---ro-lima/---sro-
port_of_spain/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_742309.pdf
iii N Umeokafor, D Isaac, K Jones, B Umeadi, Enforcement of Occupational Safety and Health

iew
Regulations In Nigeria: An Exploration (2014) 3 (93)European Scientific Journal.
ivIbid.
v H N Harry, „The Factories Act its Continued Relevance in the 21 st Century‟ (2017) Faculty of Law

Seminar Series, University of Uyo.

vi Nigeria: COVID-19 Pandemic and its effect on the Nigerian Workplace

Taylor Vinters LLP.

https://allafrica.com/stories/202004290326.html.

ev
vii Nigeria: COVID-19 Pandemic and its effect on the Nigerian Workplace

Taylor Vinters LLP

viii OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOUR FORCE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE BY CHIEF ROTIMI WILLIAMS, CFR, SAN
ix Factories Act Cap F1 LFN 2004.

r
x Section 3(4) (a) (b)
xi Section 72
xii Section 70
xiii Section 65 (5)
xiv Section 51
xv Section 5
xvi Section 23.
er
pe
xvii Section 29
xviii Section 45
xix Section 47
xx Section 43
xxi Section 53
xxii Section 88
ot

xxiii Section 57
xxiv Section 83
xxvDiugwu, I. A., Baba, D. L., and Egila, A. E. Effective Regulation and Level of Awareness: An

Expose of the Nigeria‟s Construction Industry. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology,
tn

2012. Vol. 2, pp 140-146.

xxvi Section 87(1)
xxvii T. Hameed, The Factories Act and the Development of Occupational Health and Safety in

Nigeria, Labour Law Review, (2013) 7(3) pp 24-63.

xxviii U. Abubakar, Structural and Implementation Issues around the New Nigerian Labour, Safety,
rin

Health and Welfare Bill (2012): Lessons from UK, USA, Australia and China, Transactions of the VSB
– Technical University of Ostrava, (2016) 11(1), p.61-71.
N. Umeokafor, D. Isaac, K. Jones and B. Umeadi, Enforcement of Occupational Safety and
Health Regulations in Nigeria: An Exploration (2014)3 European Scientific Journal, (Special
Edition) pp.93-104.
ep

xxix Section 3
xxx Section 30(3)
xxxi Abubakar (31).
xxxii Ibid.
xxxiii Hameed (30).
Pr

xxxiv F. Omokhodion, Occupational Health in Nigeria, Occupational Medicine, 59, (2009) p.201.
xxxv Section 29(a)

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066
 ed
xxxvi Section 29(c)
xxxvii Section 29(h) and s 29(m)
xxxviii P. Okoye, J. Ezeokonkwo and F. Ezeokoli, Building Construction Workers‟ Health and Safety

Knowledge and Compliance on Site, (2016) 5(1)Journal of Safety Engineering, , pp17-26;

N Umeokafor, D Isaac, K Jones, B Umeadi, Enforcement of Occupational Safety and Health

iew
Regulations In Nigeria: An Exploration (2014) European Scientific Journal February vol.3 (93;
U Abubakar, An Overview of the Occupational Safety and Health Systems of Nigeria, UK, USA,
Australia and China: Nigeria Being the Reference Case Study, (2015) 3(11) American Journal of
Educational Research, pp.1350-1358.
xxxix B. Adeogun and C. Okafor, Occupational Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Trend in

Nigeria, (2013) 2(1) International Journal of Environmental Science, Management and

Engineering Research, pp.24-29.

ev
xl U Abubakar, An Overview of the Occupational Safety and Health Systems of Nigeria, UK, USA,

Australia and China: Nigeria Being the Reference Case Study, (2015) 3(11) American Journal of
Educational Research, pp.1350-1358.
xli Government of Nigeria and ILO. Nigeria Decent Work Country Programme II (20152018),

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/program/dwcp/download/nigeria201518.pdf, no

r
date
xlii Section 71
xliiiSection 27, Section 26.

xliv

xlv
Section 6

Section 7(1)
er
pe
xlvi Section 102
xlvii Sections 102-104
xlviii Sections 96 and 103
xlix Section 87
l Section 86
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695066