by Lynn Schler
The nonchalant attitude of the Nigerian seamen could infuriate the European officers, as seen in an exchange between Fourth Officer Imonikhe and the captain of the River Benue in 1976. The officer had ignored the captain’s orders to keep anchor watches on the bridge, and was found instead in the saloon eating breakfast. The captain reprimanded him, telling him that if he did not act and behave like an officer, he would be demoted. According to the captain’s log, Imonikhe “laughed and asked if he was being threatened. He was told that if being reprimanded constituted being threatened, then he was indeed.”65
Insubordination could also be seen in the interactions between Nigerian officers and the captains. Captains frequently recorded full conversations that took place in the process of disciplining junior officers, and the replies of officers to the disciplinary actions taken against them reflected a disdain for the captains’ authority. For example, the logbook of the King Jaja from 1973 reads, “The above offences were read to the 2nd engineer—Mr. S. R. Azmi, and when asked if he had anything to say, he replied ‘I do not agree with the statement put on because the captain’s behavior was insulting to me.’”66 On the MV River Ngada in 1980, Chief Officer Bob-Foues repeatedly disrespected the captain and disregarded his orders. The logbook records incidents in which the chief officer refused the captain’s orders, threatened him with violence, and spit on him in the saloon in front of other crew members. The insubordinate officer had come to dinner wearing shorts and bathroom slippers, and the captain ordered the steward to not serve him until he went to change. Bob-Foues responded by rushing into the pantry and grabbing food, shouting, “What do you call proper dressing?”67
In many incidents, seamen challenged or disregarded the authority of captains when they felt that the working conditions promised to them at the founding of the NNSL were not being upheld. Seamen were aware of the official terms of their employment, and they refused to carry out orders that violated their contracts. For example, on the River Ethiope in 1980, the captain’s log details a dispute between himself and the deck crew. The captain had complained to the bosun about the lack of work being done by the deck crew, claiming they were working only on the derricks and hatches and refused to do any other work. The master claimed that according to his experience, the crew could take on other jobs as well. In the ship log, the captain reported a protest meeting with the deck crew that took place in his cabin:
One of the crew was demanding to change the whole crew if the Master was not satisfied. Another, Thomas, stated if the Master wanted other work, then to hire a rigging gang. In the Master’s opinion this was disorderly conduct on behalf of the crew and would make no more entries until he instructed the Chief Officer who was presently ashore, as it appeared there was complete indiscipline amongst the deck crew. At approximately 1930hrs, the Chief Officer reported to the Master and the master stated he wished to discuss the matter of discipline amongst the crew, the Chief Officer replied that he would prefer to take a shower before discussing the matter and the Master replied to the Chief Officer to come up immediately after he had had a shower. At 2130, the Chief Officer reported to the Master and stated that in his opinion there is no indiscipline amongst the deck crew. The Master replied if so, then by tomorrow 5-10-1980 there had better be a different attitude amongst the deck crew.68
An entry from the River Oshun in 1981 further demonstrated the lack of regard the crew could display for the captain’s orders when they felt rules were arbitrary or wrongly enforced:
Crew were boarding cases of beer on board from this morning. I summoned all departments to officers’ smoke room and tried to find out who owned these beers. They all claimed to have certain amounts of cases. I appealed with them to discharge the beers as these were contraband goods and explained to them the possible problems the V/L might face arrival Lagos. The crew refused to carry out my instructions. Some threatened to be paid off immediately and some became very hostile. In order to prevent any possible delay to the ship in port I requested them to submit to me a signed protest also stating how many cases of beer each individual had purchased. At this time of this entry 1800hrs 15/4/81, this written document has still not been received.69
Seamen made unilateral decisions to ignore or amend the captain’s command if they felt it violated their rights, even if this compromised the safety of the ship or cargo. This could be seen in an entry from the River Benue in 1974. In the incident under question, the captain reprimanded the second officer, who had not reported for guard duty because of the rain, and in his absence, a container had been broken into. The captain demanded that the officer explain why he did not show up for duty, and the officer replied, “The supervisor would not probably need me because it was raining heavily and I intended to be around as soon as the rain ceased.” The exchange that followed reflects the brazen attitude of the second officer toward the captain:
Master: Is that a reasonable answer to my statement?
2/O: Regarding cargo work it is.
Master: If I put it to you that your answer is unsatisfactory and it tantamounts to negligence of duty and unconcerned attitude towards the safety of the ship and cargo as a result of which the container in question was tampered with. As a prudent duty officer you should have made yourself available to the supervisor etc. on duty with you in case of any events on board. Have you got anything to say to my preceding statement?
2/O: I have nothing more to say as my defense has already been declared unsatisfactory.70
In another incident on the Oduduwa in 1973, crew members were called to duty to assist in covering up the hatches during a storm. They refused to do so, claiming they were not given the required oilskin jackets. As a result, rain entered the hatch and damaged the cargo. The seamen were fined and cautioned by the captain.71 In another incident occurring on the River Oji in 1981, the captain had declared a state of emergency due to an oil spill on deck. He reported that the oil spill presented a fire hazard and could also pollute the water around the dock. The declaration enabled him to demand overtime hours from the crew. Despite the declaration of emergency, the deck crew refused to carry out the order to clean up the spill, and the captain called them for a meeting to explain their refusal. He wrote, “They unanimously said that they disregarded the emergency declared as well as refused 2nd Engineer’s orders because they feel neglected in respect of compensation for cleaning the oil. They assumed the sailors had compensation promised before cleaning the ship-side and I told them that this was not true.” The captain decided to fine each of the men one day’s pay, and denied them overtime hours for the previous day as well.72
These incidents reveal that crews were not simply insubordinate, but mobilized onboard protests and work stoppages when they felt that their rights were not being protected by captains on the Nigerian ships. As in the previous case where the crew refused to clean up the oil spill without being assured overtime pay, the crews of the NNSL were aware of the conditions of work promised to them and agitated to ensure that these rights were indeed protected. On board the River Niger in 1971, Captain Vittle reported that the crew refused to clean out the oil tanks unless they were paid “fifteen hours pay at the tank clearing rate agreed by their union for seven men plus the bosun and headman.” The captain claimed that this job should normally take three or four hours, and told the crew that their demand was unreasonable. Nonetheless, in the face of the crew’s refusal to do the job, the captain had little choice but to hire shore labor. The tanks were subsequently cleaned out by four men employed for two hours.73
DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISEMPOWERMENT
While ship logbooks describe incidents of insubordination and protest among crews, these records do not document the widespread abuses of power by captains and officers on Nigerian ships. Oral interviews with seamen revealed a pervasive sense among rank-and-file seamen that despite their hopes that Nigerian ships would provide a sense of belonging and security, the reality of employment with the NNSL was a great disappointment. Seamen came to w
ork for the NNSL with great anticipation, but the Nigerianization of ships eventually came to represent violated agreements and unfulfilled promises. Crews on Nigerian ships complained that Nigerian captains rarely abided by the conditions of work established in agreements between management and the seamen’s union, and instead made arbitrary or self-serving decisions that left seamen feeling exploited or mistreated. Increasingly over time, seamen were exposed to the whims of captains and officers and required to work under conditions that were in direct violation of official employment policies. Seamen charged that over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, until the liquidation of the NNSL in 1994, Nigerian captains and officers frequently exploited their positions of power and disregarded seamen’s rights and entitlements.
The deterioration in working conditions on board NNSL ships was directly linked to the broader fate of the NNSL as a failed political project, and the incidents of authoritarianism and arbitrary command on board Nigerian ships must therefore be situated against the backdrop of the broader political history of postcolonial Nigeria. This history is one characterized by ongoing political and economic instability that over time led to increasing authoritarian tendencies and corruption on the part of ruling elites.74 Some scholars, such as Eghosa Osaghae, have argued that colonialism introduced a system of law and order based on coercion and authoritarianism, while others have claimed that authoritarian regimes had deep roots in precolonial societies in Nigeria.75 Despite disagreements over the roots of the phenomenon, scholars largely concur that the postcolonial period has been characterized by increasing hegemonic tendencies among ruling classes. The demise of the First Republic in 1966 signified an end to the democratic experiment in Nigeria, and gave way to a succession of military rulers for the next three decades, with the exception of the Second Republic lasting from 1979 to 1983. Military rule increased the abuses of power by ruling classes. As Augustine Ikelegbe argued, the succession of coups and military dictatorships institutionalized “authoritarian rule, hegemonic agendas, patrimonialism, clientelism, and repression.”76 Against the backdrop of diminishing resources and growing uncertainty, those in power increasingly turned to draconian methods.77 In the face of narrowing options, working classes experienced increasing vulnerability and disempowerment.
This broader history was reflected in the working relations and hierarchies of power on the NNSL ships. The enthusiasm and anticipation that characterized crews’ moves to the Nigerian line from European vessels soon gave way to bitter feelings of exploitation. Seamen’s descriptions of everyday incidents on board ships reflected an overall sense that Nigerian ships were not properly run. There was widespread sentiment among seamen that European ships were well organized, predictable, and offered more security. On Nigerian ships, there was a sense of instability and arbitrariness to the rule of order, and crews complained that captains and officers had little regard for maintenance of ships or crew welfare. Seamen’s assessment of their working lives on Nigerian ships soon became a metaphor for what was wrong with Nigeria in general. As one man said, “There was a problem with the NNSL. Although I did not quite understand the nature of the problem, I do know that there were problems that led to its collapse. I left the NNSL because in this country we have a lot of dictatorship. This was exactly what the problem was all about that made me leave. This affected the NNSL because sometimes you could bring about a very good idea but it would be rejected afterward without implementation.”78 For the crew, life on ships became a microcosm of the disappointments and disempowerment they experienced in the postindependence era.
The organization and payment of overtime on Nigerian ships provides a useful example of these broader dynamics. The issue of overtime payment on board ships was one of the strongest drawing points for crews to the NNSL. The rules regarding the payment of overtime on NNSL ships were established and institutionalized through agreements between management and the seamen’s union at the founding of the national line. But while seamen greatly anticipated the benefit of overtime that had not existed on European ships, the reality ultimately did not meet their expectations. According to labor agreements, captains had full discretion in determining the compensation for overtime. This opened the way to bitter disputes between the master of the ship and the crew. According to the Conditions of Service formulated in 1960, seamen would be paid for hours of work that surpassed the standard eight- to nine-hour workday (depending on the seaman’s job) during the week. Overtime would also be paid for all work that exceeded the six-hour workday on Saturdays, and four hours on Sundays. The regulation gave the master much discretion in determining overtime work and compensation. First, seamen were required to work overtime at the master’s command, and thus could not refuse to work extra hours. In addition, overtime was not calculated in emergency situations “affecting the safety of the vessel, passengers crew or cargo (of which the Master shall be the sole judge) or for safety or emergency boat and fire drills.” As seen in the incident above, the declaration of an emergency could be disputed by the seamen, who resented working overtime without compensation. Other points of contention arose around the form of compensation that was paid for overtime work. According to the regulation, the ship’s commander was to keep a record of the overtime hours worked by each seaman and then determine the compensation they would receive. Compensation was not always in the form of salary, and overtime that was accumulated on sailing days, when the workload was heavier, could be paid in time-off duty in port. As the regulation stated, “Under normal circumstances, but subject always to the Master’s discretion, compensating time-off in port will be limited to overtime hours earned on days of sailing and arrival.”79
The agreement therefore gave NNSL captains full discretion in determining what was considered overtime, how many hours would be paid, and how it would be paid. This opened the door to many abuses. Seamen interviewed complained that in fact, Nigerian captains had little regard for adhering to the hours of a normal workday. Seamen often remarked that the British officers kept to a strict schedule and discipline. One remarked, “The European captains never give us problems. There was time for everything—there was time for work, food and so on.”80 Alternatively, in many testimonies, seamen complained of being asked by Nigerian officers to work at odd hours without being compensated: “[European captains and officers] are all good. . . . Everything have normal time and hours. When it is your time, you go and work, and when you finish, nobody worry me. I do not know about any other person, but they are good to me. Elder Dempster followed the line while the NNSL had no rules and regulation. . . . We often work at ED line for eight hours, but in the NNSL, you are called to duty with no specific time and at any time.”81
Seamen claimed that the arbitrary and unregulated hours of the working day on Nigerian ships led to negligence and compromised safety. One seaman claimed that he was often forgotten while on anchor watch, and he was forced to spend hours outside in the bitter cold: “Because of this terrible freezing cold I often faced in arrival, they have me three bottles of rum to drink.”82 He claimed that this type of negligence would never be seen on European ships: “In ED line, this never happened because they are very careful.”83 Seamen complained of their subjugation to the whims of officers, and expressed a feeling of betrayal by their compatriots:
When we were in national line, Nigerian people, captains and officers, made the work very boring for us. For example, there is time for work and time for food, but when everyone had eaten, Nigerian captains, chief engineers, and second engineers always came for their own meal at odd hours, for example at night, they woke up the steward at the wee hours of the night to warm food for them and their girlfriends. They bothered the steward a lot. This was not so under ED line; work time was work time; mealtime was mealtime for the white men, but Nigerian officers called at any time. We worked with national line as if we were slaves.84
Overtime was just one of the areas in which officers and captains attempted to exploit their positions of power. Increasingly,
seamen on NNSL ships experienced a deepening sense of injustice as work regimes and hierarchies of power reflected a diminishing regard for the safety and well-being of the crew. The following protest letter included in the logbook of the King Jaja in 1972 reflects the feelings of despair the crew experienced on board:
We the above mentioned crew of this vessel have deemed it fit to submit our grievances of all what we have encountered during the voyage . . . with the captain manning the ship Mr. F.O. Olatunji.
1) On leaving Lagos for Port Harcourt on the 6th of May 1972. We began to experience the shortage of beer from May 21st 1972.
2) while on our way to Dakar for bunker we notice the shortage of foods running down gradually. On leaving Dakar, for two days we were given horse-biscuits for consumption in place of bread but yet we did not make any noise or report to anyone. On getting to Rotterdam, Holland the 10th of June 1972, the captain of the ship drew the attention of the crew saying the company have introduce a new formula saying no one should be given cash advances exceeding £5 from each port. This we refused saying we suffered enough during the voyage since we left Lagos and so long we have got our money in the bank, we must have any amount we ask for provided we are not in red. We do not ask the purser of the ship to give us what we do not have in the bank but what we have.
