The African proverb “The axe forgets, but the tree remembers” reminds us that while those who act may soon move on, those who suffer the blow carry its scars for much longer. In workplace discipline, especially when allegations of crime are involved, this proverb rings true. An employer may quickly dismiss or suspend a worker, but the employee, and often the law, will remember if the process was heavy-handed, unfair, or defamatory.
In Nigeria, allegations of criminal activity in the workplace pose a double challenge. Employers must protect their operations and reputation, but they must also avoid stepping outside the boundaries of the law. Done wrongly, disciplinary action can expose companies to wrongful dismissal claims or, worse, defamation suits.
What employers may do, lawfully
Employers are entitled to act, but their actions must stay within legal limits:
-Suspend to allow investigation
Suspension is recognised as a legitimate management tool. Courts, however, stress that suspension is not punishment but a temporary measure. Unless the contract expressly allows suspension without pay, employers should treat it as paid leave. In Esiaga v. University of Calabar, the court warned against indefinite or punitive suspensions.
-Investigate internally on the civil standard.
Employers do not need to wait for a criminal conviction before acting on misconduct. The Supreme Court in PC Mike Eze v. Spring Bank Plc confirmed that an employer can dismiss once misconduct is proved on the balance of probabilities, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
-Follow fair procedure
Due process is non-negotiable. The NICN, in multiple cases, including Mrs Ebere Ukoji v. Standard Alliance Life Assurance Co. Ltd (NICN/LA/48/2012), has ruled that dismissal without hearing or reason is unlawful. Employees must know the charges, see the evidence, and have a chance to respond.
-Apply governance safeguards for senior staff.
For directors and executives, companies must observe statutory notice requirements and governance rules. The Supreme Court in Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc nullified a removal because the director was not properly notified.
Where employers must not cross the line
Employers must resist the temptation to treat disciplinary action as a criminal trial. Their mandate is to decide on employment, not criminal guilt. Criminal culpability belongs to the courts.
They must also avoid “naming and shaming”. Circulating allegations through all-staff emails, press releases, or social media exposes the company to defamation claims. Nigerian law defines defamation simply: a false statement that injures reputation and is communicated to a third party. A disciplinary process that leaks into the public sphere is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Defamation risks in disciplinary action
Courts recognise qualified privilege for workplace communications where both sender and recipient have a duty or interest, such as HR panels or immediate supervisors. But privilege is lost if malice is proven or if information is circulated beyond those who need to know. The Supreme Court in Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd affirmed this principle.
Even police reports can trigger liability if written in bad faith. The safer route is to present facts neutrally, “an employee is alleged to have diverted funds”, rather than conclusory labels like “fraudster” or “thief”.
Finally, jurisdiction matters. Employment claims fall to the NICN, but defamation claims belong to the State or FCT High Courts. Employers cannot assume employment litigation shields them from defamation actions elsewhere.
Practical playbook for employers
Use precautionary suspension but pay the employee unless contractually exempt.
Frame the inquiry around workplace rules, not criminal guilt.
Serve clear particulars with supporting documents.
Allow representation by a union or colleague.
Keep language neutral: use “alleged” or “reported”, never defamatory labels.
Limit circulation of allegations to HR, line managers, and the panel.
Report to police cautiously, keeping records factual and concise.
Give written reasons for the outcome and pay all entitlements earned up to the point of exit.
Conclusion
Allegations of crime in the workplace are high-risk moments for any employer. But the path is clear: suspend if needed, investigate fairly, decide on the civil standard, and communicate narrowly and respectfully. Employers who take shortcuts may win the moment but lose in court or in reputation.
As the proverb teaches, “The axe forgets, but the tree remembers.” Employees will not forget how they were treated in times of crisis, and neither will the law. Wise employers act firmly, but with fairness and restraint.
Dr. Olufemi Ogunlowo is the CEO of Strategic Outsourcing Limited, a leading provider of personnel and business process outsourcing services in Nigeria. He is also a regular columnist on employment and workforce strategy.
