by Lynn Schler
The history of labor organizing among Nigerian seamen in the era of decolonization largely mirrors this broader tale of emerging possibilities in the postwar era and their ultimate defeat to the nationalist perspective. In the previous chapter, it was argued that seamen’s social and cultural lives in the postwar era reflected a lived Pan-Africanism. In what follows, we will see that seamen’s political organizing and protests in the 1950s were also deeply influenced by Pan-African ideologies. The postwar protest movements of the black diaspora were an inspiration to seamen, and their organizing efforts throughout this era relied heavily on support from diaspora communities. But these transnational political solidarities became increasingly sidelined in the transition to Nigerian independence. In the final years of colonial rule, the leadership of the Union of Seamen insisted on a contracting of an ideological vision away from Pan-African perspectives and a turn inward to a political agenda focused on Nigeria. Although seamen’s effective protests had ignited the process leading to recognition of union leadership as an equal negotiating partner with management, the new relationship based on cooperation and collaboration led the leadership of the union to abandon many of the demands and charges that were at the root of seamen’s discontent.
This chapter focuses on the history of labor organizing within the seamen’s union in the shadow of decolonization, and scrutinizes how the process of nationalization limited seamen’s opportunities for forging transnational alliances. While organizing among seamen had historically relied upon and benefited from ties to black communities and ideologies situated in Liverpool and around the diaspora, the process of decolonization limited the potential for cooperative efforts between Nigerian seamen and diaspora working classes. A Nigerian perspective soon took the place of Pan-African perspectives, and seamen were gradually disciplined away from more radical visions of liberation. It will be seen that union leadership played a significant role in bringing about this shift following a change in the status of the union as an equal negotiating partner with shipping companies. As union officials secured more power and influence from British shipping officials seeking to cooperate with organized labor, power was consolidated around the Lagos-based union, and rank-and-file labor lost the ability to initiate spontaneous protests or to represent themselves in disputes on board ships. This had far-reaching consequences for ship-based organizing among seamen, and over the long run, contributed to their overall sense of disempowerment.
Two major incidents give life to these important transitions in the history of seamen’s organizing. The first was the recruitment of Sidi Khayam, a new general secretary for the union, in 1958; and second, the strike that began on board the MV Apapa in Liverpool in 1959. The events and outcomes surrounding these two incidents provide important insights into seamen’s organizing efforts and opportunities, as well as their successes and failures, in the shadow of decolonization. After examining the kinds of Pan-African ideologies that inspired and shaped seamen’s labor organizing and protests in the postwar era, we will turn to the events that led to the consolidation of power in the hands of a subdued leadership, and the long-term impact of these events on seamen’s political and ideological autonomy.
SEAMEN, THE BLACK DIASPORA, AND PAN-AFRICAN IDEOLOGIES OF LIBERATION
Africans who undertook transnational migrations during the colonial era were exposed to the denigrating experiences of racism and discrimination. But for many, mobility was also an empowering experience. Africans traveling to Europe and the United States in the postwar era came into contact with local black communities and with the protest ideologies and liberation movements emerging in them.6 These colonial travelers became important conduits of knowledge and political mobilization linking blacks across the Atlantic World.7 African seamen in particular played a central role as conveyers of news, ideologies, and trends across the diaspora as early as the slave trade, and they have thus played a central role in the historic evolution of the diaspora. As Jeffrey Bolster has argued, the work of seafaring was the catalyst for defining a new black ethnicity, as sailors embodied “a mode of communication integrating local communities into the larger community of color.”8
Seamen were not only conduits of knowledge—they were also deeply influenced and shaped by their own transnational mobility. As targets of racism both ashore and on board ships, seamen were attuned to increasingly radicalized calls for change within black communities in England, the United States, and South Africa. Particularly in the postwar era, they were emboldened by the ideologies of liberation and the waves of protest that materialized across the diaspora at this time. As Michael Gomez has argued, “The dawn of African Independence included illumination from the Diaspora, and the effect of simultaneous conflict in Africa and the Diaspora were closer cultural and political links between the two.”9 In the following letter written to the Elder Dempster shipping company in 1958, we can see how seamen drew inspiration from contemporary struggles in England and the United States:
Really, what I have found out is that what is happening in Little Rock, Arkansas, USA; South Africa; London and Nottingham in England is happening on all the ships of the E.D. Lines in West Africa. . . . It is nothing but slavery, colour prejudice and racism. . . . African haters like the captain on board “Egori” are out to destroy our efforts. Personally, I still think it is high time that we tell the world of the truth about the E.D. Lines and their inhuman exploitations of us as Africans, i.e. apart from working between 12-1/2 and 18-1/2 hour days, we are exposed to the worst treatment and humiliations on earth. . . . I am now appealing to you to look into the case, for if they were punished because of the color of their skin, I am afraid the Union will have to share in the punishment since we are all black men and because injury to one of us is injury to all of us. We will also appeal to your country as a whole to help us fight this menace of colour prejudice which is the product of imperialism.10
Exposure to events in the black diaspora led to increasing militancy in seamen’s protests, as can be seen in the following letter from the Nigerian Union of Seamen to Elder Dempster in 1958:
For your information, the African crews have long hesitated from retaliating not because they are cowards but because the Union has been continually telling them that they should obey before complaining. If by any chance you think that they are afraid of being defeated by the English offenders on board ships, you can refer to boxing history and see what Joe Louis and Sugar Ray Robinson did to their white opponents. Today, Hogan Kid Bassey, another black man, is showing the world how he can handle the white man.
And while the [shipping master] sits back with his English friends from shipping companies, who carry away our raw material and minerals and enjoys this paradise of sunshine, our men—Africans and West Indians, are being slashed with knives and beaten with pokers in England.
Do the incidents which we have stated here not portray very clearly that the African are hated by their English co-workers and superiors on board the ships? Never are they only beaten by one at a time, but in every instant they are attacked by groups of English seamen. . . . Does this not prove conclusively that colour prejudice is rampant on all ships, particularly those of the Elder Dempster Lines? What is happening and what we have related here is no different from the incidents taking place in Little Rock, Arkansas, and London and Nottingham, England.
The E.D. Lines do not know that the African ministers who travel on the ships from time to time are aware of these facts and they will not shut their eyes to the fill-treatment and deaden their ears to the cries of their unfortunate brothers. The situation has now reached an intolerable point and we are no longer prepared to sit back and allow matters to run their own course while our men are being continually mishandled because of the colour of their skin. If the Elder Dempster Lines and other shipping companies continue to send the English seamen to beat up African crews, we will show them that Africans are no cowards.11
As the end of colonialism approached, seamen’s protests became embold
ened by the prospect of independence. Decolonization ushered in a new set of rules regulating relations between blacks and whites in Africa, and seamen were keenly aware that the balance of process had shifted. This can be seen in the following letter from 1958:
You talk about bowing your head to an African Labour Minister as if it proves you consider Africans your equals. We know as well as you do that you did not bow your head to him because you felt like doing so but because you were compelled to by economic circumstances. . . . We are aware of the fact that the cause for which the shipping companies are fighting is that of super-profit, hence their inhuman exploitation of the seamen. . . . If fighting for your rights will make you recommend to the shipping companies that they should cease to employ Nigerian seamen, you should do it in time. . . . Time was when we would have been scared stiff hearing that type of threat from the Shipping Master, but fortunately for us, no nation has succeeded in stopping the forces of evolution. What we are trying to tell you is that the wheel of history is revolving in favor of Africans and against imperialism.12
Seamen warned the shipping company that changes were taking place throughout the continent, and the racial hierarchies that characterized the colonial era were being dismantled all over, and not just in Nigeria: “We are fully aware of the fact that we Africans are despised by the white man because of our race and colour but you should warn the captains and superior officers of your ships to refrain from showing their hatred of us when circumstances force them to work with us and moreover since these ships must call at ports in the west coast of Africa.”13 Shipping officials were also warned by insiders on ships that there were plans for forming a West African union of seamen, with Nigerians joining forces with seamen and dockworkers in Sierra Leone and Ghana.14
While union leaders in Lagos were the official representatives for seamen, crews on board ships did not rely solely on the union to represent them. In voicing grievances to the shipping companies, crews initiated autonomous onboard protests without the prior knowledge or support of headquarters in Lagos. These initiatives often mobilized support and drew upon resources available through their diaspora connections. Particularly in Liverpool, seamen relied heavily on the local black community and its leadership. As a meeting point for Afro-Americans, Afro-Carribbeans, and Africans, Liverpool evolved as a breeding ground for Pan-African political activism and ideology.15
With many of the black community of Liverpool engaged in seafaring, the plight of black seamen was high on the political agenda of local leaders and activists, and they took up seamen’s causes and provided support on multiple levels. One notable figure dating back to the pre–World War II era was Pastor Daniels Ekarte, the founder of the African Church Mission of Liverpool. Ekarte was himself a former Nigerian seaman who settled in Liverpool in 1915. His mission became a center for all those in need in the black community, and Nigerians who visited the city knew they could turn to Pastor Daniels for help.16 Ekarte’s church established the Stanley House, a community center for the benefit of the local black community, and this became an important meeting place for West Africans, West Indians, and those of African descent who settled in Liverpool permanently.17 The Stanley House provided seamen meals, lodging, and recreational activities. Another local figure, Mr. Akinsanya, took it upon himself to represent seamen in their conflicts with Elder Dempster. According to a 1959 report, Akinsanya was a committee member in Liverpool of the National Union of Nigeria, which “catered to the interests of all Nigerian workers and seamen in the U.K.” Akinsanya met with shipping company officials to give voice to complaints among the African crews of Elder Dempster ships. He relayed complaints from the MV Apapa, where men were being asked to work excessive hours, and accused the second engineer of changing the hours “on account of his dislike of Africans.” Shipping officials repelled these accusations of racism alleged by Akinsanya and other Liverpudlian blacks. As John Holt, the Elder Dempster official, reported: “I told him that I would be unable to carry on this discussion if he insisted on bringing an element of racial discord into it, and he withdrew his comments.”18
NEW LEADERSHIP IN THE SEAMEN’S UNION: GENERAL SECRETARY SIDI OMAR KHAYAM
Seamen relied on diaspora communities for support and leadership because the seamen’s union in Nigeria had been largely ineffective in its role as the representative of seamen’s rights. But the effectiveness of the union as an agent of change for seamen was drastically improved with the recruitment in April 1958 of a new general secretary, Sidi Omar Khayam, who replaced Franco Olugbake. Sidi Khayam, born in Nigeria, had lived, worked, and studied in England for nearly ten years before he was recruited by the Nigerian Union of Seamen to be their new general secretary.19 Khayam was living in Liverpool when some local African residents and Nigerian seamen persuaded him to return to Nigeria and head the seamen’s union. Khayam claimed to have studied economics and law, although he did not complete any degree, and had scattered experience with trade union membership as he worked in various factories and industries throughout England. The rank and file of the union believed that the recruitment of a Nigerian from abroad would improve the capabilities of the union, and perhaps help avoid the political competition and tensions that had plagued the union since its founding. Seamen suspected that the officers of the union were embezzling funds, and an auditor’s report confirmed that there had been irregularities in the handling of dues. As representatives of crews docked in London wrote with regard to the elections of union officers in 1959: “Since the Nigerian Union of Seamen has been formed, we have tried several seamen, but they let us down. We collectively suggest to try outsiders by applications.”20
As a recruit from abroad, Khayam was not recognized by the officers of the union—S. M. Ekore, T. Oguntimeyin, and A. Monday. In a public notice, these officers decided that following the ousting of Olugbake, A. Monday would act as general secretary until elections.21 But rank-and-file seamen accused these officers of corruption, absenteeism, and antidemocratic practices, and rejected their executive decisions.22 The shipping company reported to have very good relations with these men, a fact that might have fueled the rank-and-file seamen’s distrust of them. These officers had their own faction in the union, but Khayam had the larger following, and, eventually, in May 1959, Khayam succeeded in leading a no-confidence vote, expelling them from the union.
From the start of his work as general secretary, Khayam made significant efforts to improve seamen’s working conditions, taking actions that earlier officers had avoided. He boarded ships in port to survey working conditions, interviewed both African crews and European officers, and filed reports of abuses and complaints expressed by seamen. The shipping companies saw this as stirring up trouble.23 Archival records reveal that Khayam’s appointment to the position of general secretary strained relations with the shipping companies, particularly because of the confrontational manner he adopted toward the employers from the beginning of his term. Attempting to solidify his position, Khayam was initially uncompromising in his attitude toward the shipping company, making strong demands for salary increases, payment for overtime, and improved lodging for seamen on board ships and ashore. Previous officers of the union had avoided confrontations with the management, hoping that positive relations with shipping officials would lead to personal benefits for themselves. Khayam seemed to put seamen’s concerns first, and he did not turn a blind eye to injustices. He reported instances of bribery on ships and in the process of recruitment, and insisted that seamen be recruited through a closed-shop system organized by the union. Khayam did not limit his scope to Nigerian crew members, but also made demands with regard to African seamen in general. In one instance, he filed a complaint with Captain Perkins of the SS Winneba. Khayam claimed that the captain was making unusually harsh demands against African seamen by demanding that they raise their mattresses during his inspections of crew quarters. Perkins told Khayam he had no jurisdiction over the Freetown crew, to which Khayam replied, “The Nigerian Union of Seamen
concerned itself with the welfare of all African seamen, whether from Sierra Leone, Ghana or Nigeria.”24 At the end of his visit on the ship, he instructed all the African crews to refuse the captain’s orders, and not to lift their mattresses for inspection. Khayam clearly was not deterred by the power of shipping companies, and it was reported that in meetings he became abusive and termed the shipping officials the “degenerate British.”25
Khayam became involved in the broader trade union politics in Nigeria, and the shipping companies closely followed his activities. He was seen as a dangerous radical with ties to other agitators, and his moves were monitored and debated by colonial officials. Thus, the Department of Labour reported: “We have heard on the confidential wire that Khayam is in the meantime having regular contact with such people as Mrs. Ransome-Kuti, Imodou, and Goodluck. He is indeed running true to form.”26 They attempted to delegitimize him and looked for ways to condemn him: “Khayam wants the Union to purchase a car for his use. A rumour to this effect has also been heard previously and we are pleased to have it confirmed. Khayam’s real intention is to gain control over the Union funds.”27 Shipping officials tried to build a case against him as an active Communist, and they solicited Tom Yates, general secretary of the National Union of Seamen in Britain, to do a background check on Khayam, to which he replied, “I am far from happy about the election of this young man. He has never been a seaman, or for that matter had any practical experience whatsoever, and although he claims to be associated with the Labour Party, he has visited Egypt, India, China and Moscow.” Despite Yates’s suspicions, he concluded, “I can not prove that he is a Commie, or that he will not do a clean job for the Nigerian seamen.”28 Khayam himself went to great pains to deny allegations that he was a Communist, but the shipping company was not convinced, as one official wrote, “He really wanted to impress me with the fact that he had nothing to do with the Party nowadays. Methinks he doth protest too much.” The more vocal Khayam became, the more he became suspect and dangerous in the eyes of shipping officials, as the same official concluded, “In short, he is intelligent, clever, completely unscrupulous, has no regard for the truth and is willing to do anything to achieve his ends.”29
