A particularly worrying trend in some Nigerian workplaces is the tendency of organisations to abandon their staff when they are arrested by law enforcement agencies in connection with official duties. Instead of stepping in to defend and protect their employees, these companies shift the burden to the employee’s guarantor—a position that is both unethical and unsupported by Nigerian labour law.

Let us be clear: when an employee is arrested in relation to their official work, whether it is a financial transaction gone wrong, a compliance issue, or a third-party complaint arising from the employee’s professional conduct, the responsibility for managing the situation rests squarely on the employer. This responsibility is rooted in both the principles of employment law and the moral obligations of the employment relationship.

Under Nigerian labour jurisprudence, the contract of employment forms the legal foundation of the relationship between employer and employee. According to Section 7 of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004, an employer is obligated to provide the terms and conditions of employment to the employee. Implicit in this relationship is the principle of duty of care, which extends to protecting the employee from harm or legal jeopardy while carrying out legitimate instructions or duties on behalf of the company.

When an arrest is made by law enforcement in the context of an employee performing work-related tasks, the company has a legal and ethical responsibility to intervene. This is not merely about showing solidarity; it is about acknowledging the principle of vicarious liability—the legal doctrine that holds an employer liable for the acts of its employees carried out within the scope of their employment. This principle is well established in Nigerian common law and labour law. For instance, in Okechukwu v. United Bank for Africa (2014) LPELR-23088(CA), the court reiterated the doctrine of vicarious liability, emphasising that employers are liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of their employees in the course of employment.

It is, therefore, inconsistent and hypocritical for employers to benefit from the actions of an employee during work but distance themselves when those actions attract legal scrutiny. By virtue of their employment, the employee is acting as an agent of the organisation. If their actions lead to police intervention, the first line of response must be the employer, who should assess the situation, provide legal representation, and engage with law enforcement.

Sadly, what we often see is companies refusing to show up at the police station when an employee is arrested, instructing the police to “call the guarantor.” This posture misrepresents the purpose of a guarantor. A guarantor’s role, typically outlined in the employment file, is to vouch for the employee’s integrity or be a reference point in cases of abscondment, employment verification, or job loss-related debt, not to assume liability for lawful duties performed on behalf of the company.

The Nigerian Labour Act does not impose any statutory obligation on a guarantor to act as a legal representative or protector in cases of arrest. In fact, forcing a guarantor to step into the shoes of an employer in such scenarios is both legally flawed and ethically troubling. Guarantors are private individuals who were never parties to the employment contract and cannot be made to bear the consequences of organisational failings or risks.

Furthermore, under Section 17(1) of the Labour Act, employers have a duty to ensure that the conditions of employment are safe and humane. Arrest and detention arising from official duties constitute an extreme risk, and allowing an employee to face such ordeals alone reflects a breach of the implied duty of care owed by employers.

Organisational responsibility also extends to defending the institution’s reputation. When a staff member is arrested over work-related matters, the company’s image is invariably affected. Stepping in to manage the matter shows maturity, accountability, and governance strength. It sends a strong message to other employees that the organisation values its people and stands by them when needed most. Conversely, abandoning employees at their point of distress not only destroys staff morale but also exposes the organisation to reputational damage and high staff turnover.

To safeguard both employee welfare and the company’s interests, organisations should institutionalise clear internal protocols for handling legal issues involving staff. These should include designating a legal officer or external counsel to respond to arrests, training line managers on workplace legal risks, and educating staff on proper conduct during police interactions. More importantly, employment contracts and staff handbooks must state unequivocally that the company will provide support in work-related legal matters, barring gross misconduct or criminal intent.

No employee should face the trauma of arrest and detention alone for actions taken within the scope of their work. Organisations that understand and uphold their responsibility in such moments not only obey the law but demonstrate the kind of leadership and integrity that builds loyal, productive teams. The role of the guarantor remains secondary and should never substitute for the duty owed by an employer. After all, an employee does not work for their guarantor—they work for the company.

Samuel Jekeli, a human resource professional and labour relations advocate, writes from the Centre for Social Justice. He can be contacted via [email protected]

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.