Connect with us

News

Dangote vs PENGASSAN: NLC mobilises workers for strike against refinery

Published

on

The Nigeria Labour Congress has directed its affiliate unions to begin urgent mobilisation and prepare for a nationwide industrial action against the Dangote Group, accusing the conglomerate of sustained anti-worker practices.

This came as the nationwide strike declared by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria on Monday against the refinery paralysed operations at key oil and gas regulatory institutions, including the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority.

Also on Monday, the National Industrial Court in Abuja restrained PENGASSAN from embarking on its industrial action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE, barring the union from halting crude oil and gas supply to the $20bn Lekki-based refinery.

However, PENGASSAN declared that it was not aware of the court injunction, arguing that court orders or processes were served via a court bailiff and not through social media.

In an internal memo shared with The PUNCH on Monday and addressed to the presidents and general secretaries of affiliate unions, NLC President Joe Ajaero placed NLC affiliates on alert.

The directive follows a clash between Dangote refinery and PENGASSAN. The oil union earlier announced that more than 800 workers at the Dangote refinery were dismissed after attempting to unionise. The union alleged that many of the jobs were replaced with more than 2,000 expatriates, mainly from India. Dangote has denied the accusations, saying the layoffs were part of a restructuring to improve safety and prevent sabotage, adding that over 3,000 Nigerians remain employed.

The standoff has already led PENGASSAN to order a halt to crude and gas supplies, forcing a temporary shutdown of operations at the refinery, which is critical to Nigeria’s efforts to cut fuel imports and ease pressure on foreign exchange.

Government mediators have since stepped in to prevent prolonged disruption, as a meeting held in Abuja on Monday, involving officials of the Federal Government, PENGASSAN, and Dangote Group.

Ajaero described the Dangote Group as waging a “protracted and deliberate anti-worker crusade” against the Nigerian working class. “The ongoing battle with PENGASSAN and NUPENG is merely a symptom of a deeper sickness; a capitalist pathology of union-busting, worker enslavement, and gross impunity that defines the Group’s industrial relations strategy,” he wrote.

He accused the company of operating “as a state within a state,” alleging that Dangote has for too long flouted Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution, violated International Labour Organisation Conventions 87 and 98, and treated national labour laws with contempt.

“Their facilities are not workplaces but plantations of exploitation, where the dignity of the worker is systematically crushed to maximise profit for the few. The time for pleading and endless, fruitless dialogue is over. The moment for decisive, collective action is now,” Ajaero said.

The row is about more than jobs. The $20bn refinery is central to Nigeria’s efforts to reduce fuel imports and stabilise its shaky currency. A strike that halts production would quickly be felt across the economy. The dispute also casts a spotlight on the outsized clout of both Dangote, the country’s dominant industrial player, and the unions, which remain among the few institutions capable of mass mobilisation.

The NLC directed all affiliate unions to place their members on immediate and full alert and to commence, with immediate effect, vigorous and comprehensive unionisation of all workers within Dangote Group facilities under their jurisdiction.

It further instructed unions to begin mobilising members and resources for what it described as a full-scale and decisive engagement with the conglomerate. The Congress said the aim of the action is to compel Dangote to respect the right of every worker to freely join a union of their choice, cease all forms of intimidation and victimisation, and submit to the authority of Nigeria’s labour laws and institutions.

See also  Borno bombings: Killings spark fury, defence chiefs move into Maiduguri

Each affiliate union has been ordered to set up an Action Mobilisation Committee and liaise directly with the NLC national secretariat within 72 hours to coordinate strategy, logistics, and communication. Ajaero insisted that unity of purpose and action is non-negotiable.

“The impunity of the Dangote Group must be met with the resistance of organised labour. No amount of media verbiage and paid hirelings will stop us from fighting for our liberty in the face of apparent regulatory capture, where the state seems to have abdicated its responsibility to hold this behemoth accountable for its breaches of our laws,” he said.

“The blood and sweat of Nigerian workers built this conglomerate; we will not let it become a monument to their oppression. Together, we stand! Together, we will overcome.”

NLC affiliates include the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, the National Union of Chemical, Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employees, the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees, and the National Union of Air Transport Employees.

Others include the National Union of Electricity Employees, the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria, the National Union of Textile, Garment and Tailoring Workers of Nigeria, the National Union of Metalworkers of Nigeria, the Industrial Sector Senior Staff Association of Nigeria, the Steel and Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria, and the Medical and Health Professional Senior Staff Association of Nigeria.

NNPC, others shut

The strike by PENGASSAN paralysed operations at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority.

Our correspondent observed that at the NUPRC  headquarters in Abuja, the main gate was firmly locked and key, leaving several employees stranded outside the premises. Security operatives on duty confirmed that no staff were allowed entry, in line with the strike directive issued by the union.

Similarly, activities at the NMDPRA headquarters in the busy Central Business District were completely grounded as workers fully complied with the industrial action. Confirming the situation, the PENGASSAN Chairman in NMDPRA, Tony Iziogba, told The PUNCH that the union had achieved “100 per cent compliance,” effectively restricting access to staff and visitors.

He added that his colleagues had also enforced 100 per cent compliance at the NNPCL and other relevant agencies. PENGASSAN said the strike became inevitable after the alleged wrongful dismissal of about 800 workers at the Dangote Petroleum Refinery.

Court bars PENGASSAN

The National Industrial Court, Abuja, on Monday restrained the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria from embarking on its planned industrial action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE. Justice Emmanuel Danjuma Subilim, in a ruling, barred the defendants from halting crude oil and gas supply to the Dangote Refinery.

Listed as defendants in the suit are the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission. Dangote Refinery, in an ex parte application filed by its counsel, George Ibrahim, secured the interim order against the defendants.

Ibrahim, in the motion, sought an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant (NNPCL), its members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, assigns, or howsoever described, from directing or effecting a halt in the supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant.

See also  New ADC faction emerges, rejects David Mark-led coalition

He further prayed the Court to restrain them from embarking on any industrial action against the Claimant with the intention of crippling operations, blocking access roads, obstructing vehicular movement, or otherwise disrupting the operations of the Claimant or the licensees of the 2nd to 4th Defendants, as contained in the directives issued by the 1st Defendant on September 26, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

He also sought “an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd–4th Defendants, their employees, members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, licensees, assigns or howsoever described from giving effect to the directives of the 1st Defendant to halt the supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant; or joining, continuing, embarking on, or in any manner participating in the planned industrial action of the 1st Defendant and its affiliates or cronies or any other strike whatsoever against the Claimant/Applicant, with a view to frustrating its business and operations, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”

Ibrahim argued that the Applicant is a duly licensed petroleum production and distribution company, engaged in refining and producing petroleum and petrochemical products for general public consumption in Nigeria. He stressed that the company provides essential services critical to the Nigerian economy and the well-being of the public.

He further contended that in recent times, incidents of sabotage by some employees at the Claimant’s plant had raised grave health and safety concerns, necessitating a re-organisation exercise which led to the disengagement of some staff. This, he noted, was communicated to all employees through a memo dated September 25, 2025.

According to him, in the early hours of September 26, 2025, the Claimant became aware of reports circulating online alleging that Nigerian workers were dismissed simply because they joined the 1st Defendant’s union.

He said the management of the Claimant promptly issued a press statement refuting the allegation, clarifying that the company was not opposed to unionisation, which it recognises as a constitutional right. He emphasised that the refinery has over 3,000 Nigerians in its workforce and that only a negligible number of staff were affected by the reorganisation exercise, which was necessitated by acts of sabotage and safety concerns.

Counsel further told the Court that by a letter dated September 26, 2025, the 1st Defendant, through its General Secretary, Lamumba Okugbawa, wrote to the Minister of Petroleum and Gas, threatening that unless the affected staff were reinstated—alleged to be over 800—the union would take steps to bring the Claimant to its knees.

“The 1st Defendant issued a press statement on September 26, 2025, erroneously describing the disengagement exercise as anti-labour practices, and alleging that the workers were victimised for joining the union, which is patently incorrect,” Ibrahim submitted.

He added that, notwithstanding the Claimant’s clarifications, the 1st Defendant became further incensed and directed its executives and members in the licensees of the 2nd–4th Defendants, who supply crude oil and gas to the Claimant, to halt such supply as a means of paralysing its operations.

“The 2nd–4th Defendants are on standby to implement the directives of the 1st Defendant through their agents and licensees, with a view to cutting off supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant, thereby crippling its operations, unless this Honourable Court intervenes,” Ibrahim argued.

He further asserted that the 1st Defendant, aware of its membership strength across the country, was intent on carrying out its threat to shut down the Claimant’s operations unless restrained by the Court.

“The Claimant’s plant was constructed at a cost exceeding $20bn by its promoters, to address Nigeria’s decades-long energy challenges. The refinery has been making substantial contributions to the economy and meeting consumer demand. If the 1st Defendant’s threat is carried out, Nigeria would be plunged back into the dark days of energy shortages, with devastating consequences for consumers and the economy,” he submitted.

See also  ADC, PDP await crucial Supreme Court verdict today ahead of 2027 election

According to him, the 1st Defendant and its members have perfected plans to embark on industrial action capable of crippling the Claimant’s services to the Nigerian public and the economy, without engaging in any formal dispute resolution with the Claimant as required by law.

In his brief ruling on the ex parte application, Justice Subilim held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Applicant, as the continuation of the threatened industrial action would irreparably damage its business and undermine the provision of essential services to the Nigerian public.

The judge ruled that it was in the interest of justice to restrain the Respondents in order to preserve industrial peace and safeguard the continuous provision of essential services pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Justice Subilim accordingly granted the restraining order and directed that the same be served on the defendants forthwith, together with the motion on notice. The Court held that the order shall subsist for seven days only. The matter was subsequently adjourned to October 13 for the hearing of the motion on notice.

PENGASSAN reacts

Reacting, PENGASSAN General Secretary, Lumumba Okugbawa, said in a statement that the association was not aware of the court injunction. Okugbawa argued that court orders or processes are served via a court bailiff and not through social media.

He directed all members of PENGASSAN to continue with the industrial action until further instructions. “On behalf of the national leadership of our great association, I sincerely wish to commend you all for the courage we exhibited today in standing up for what is right. We have just begun, and victory is in sight.

“Our attention has been drawn to rumours making the rounds on a court injunction restraining our noble exercise. I want to unequivocally state that we have not been served anything of such. Court orders or processes are served via a court bailiff and not through social media.

“All comrades are therefore directed to continue with the industrial action until further instruction. Only information coming through our official channels should be regarded as authentic. Any further clarification you need should be sought from higher organs of the Association,” Okugbawa said on Monday

ASCSN supports TUC, PENGASSAN

The Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria has thrown its weight behind the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria in condemning what they described as the “unjust and anti-labour” practices recently carried out by the management of Dangote Petroleum Refinery.

In a statement issued in Abuja on Monday, the ASCSN National President, Shehu Mohammed, said the arbitrary dismissal of workers for exercising their constitutional right to freely associate and belong to a trade union is a gross violation of Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution and a direct breach of Nigeria’s obligations under International Labour Organisation conventions.

“Such acts are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated in a democracy. We, therefore, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with TUC and PENGASSAN in demanding the immediate reinstatement of all affected workers just as we support the call for an independent investigation into the refinery’s anti-worker practices,” the union emphasised.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

on

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

See also  Fubara fires commissioners, Assembly awaits new list

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

on

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

See also  Nigeria braces for possible Ebola outbreak, says NCDC

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

See also  Survivors Kebbi school kidnap recount night of horror

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

 

See also  FG unveils poverty intelligence hub to target 140 million poor Nigerians

Continue Reading

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

on

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

See also  Doctors begin strike today, see why

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

See also  New ADC faction emerges, rejects David Mark-led coalition

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending