RIGHTS, REFINERIES AND RED LINES: THE LEGAL FALLOUT OF DANGOTE’S MASS
SACKINGS
A legal analysis of the PENGASSAN–Dangote refinery dispute and its implications for workers’ rights
in Nigeria.
By Tolu Akinmayowa.
Introduction
When the news broke that Dangote Refinery had dismissed more than 800 workers, Nigeria’s
labour landscape shook, in fact, most of the entire working population felt some of the heat, which
is understandable, considering the popular solidarity mantra: “an injury to one; an injury to all”. The
move triggered outrage, union strikes, and swift intervention by the Federal Government. At stake
is not just the fate of 800 employees, but the very boundary between corporate power and
constitutional rights.
The question that now echoes across factory floors and boardrooms alike is simple: Did Dangote
cross the red line?
How the controversy began
According to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), the
dismissed employees were sacked soon after attempts to formalize the exercise of their
constitutional rights of belonging to a union (the benefits of which are numerous). Management,
however, described the move as a legitimate internal restructuring exercise.
Within days, the tension escalated into a nationwide strike threat that briefly disrupted petroleum
operations. Government mediators and other stakeholders eventually stepped in, halting further
escalation. However, behind the political resolution lies a deeper legal question to wit: were the
sackings consistent with Nigeria’s labour laws and international obligations?
The constitutional red line
The 1999 Constitution (as amended), under Section 40, guarantees every citizen the right to freely
associate – including the right to form or belong to a trade union. That protection is not symbolic; it
is a fundamental right, enforceable against both the state and private employers.
In plain terms, an employer who punishes an employee for joining a union undermines the
Constitution itself. The courts have consistently viewed such acts as unlawful, regardless of the
employer’s status or size.
The Labour Act: process matters
The Labour Act (Cap L1 LFN 2004) sets the framework for employment contracts, termination, and
notice requirements. The Act states expressly in Section 9(6) that No contract shall ‐
(a) make it a condition of employment that a worker shall or shall not join a trade
union or shall or shall not relinquish membership or a trade union; or
(b) cause the dismissal of, or otherwise prejudice, a worker‐
(i) by reason of trade union membership.
While it offers protection against dismissal for union activity, it also imposes duties of fairness and
proper procedure. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria has also interpreted the Act in line with
constitutional rights and international labour standards.
In several recent rulings, the NICN has emphasized that termination must not only comply with
notice periods but also with fair motive and process. Dismissal that targets employees for union
involvement cannot be disguised as “restructuring.”
Trade Unions Act: the right to organize
The Trade Unions Act grants workers the right to form and join registered unions, while obliging
employers to recognize and negotiate with them. Employers cannot interfere with the employees’
choice of association. Section 24 of the Act also formalizes the check-off system, where union dues
are deducted once members freely consent — reinforcing the principle that union participation is
voluntary, not subject to employer approval.
The international angle: ILO conventions and the FPRW
Nigeria has ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions No. 87 and 98, which
protect freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. These
instruments reaffirmed in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
(FPRW) explicitly prohibit dismissal or discrimination based on union activity.
Though not domesticated as statutes, the NICN regularly applies them as persuasive standards. In
Aero Contractors Co. v. NAAE (2017), the Court invoked ILO principles to affirm that union
membership is a protected right in Nigeria’s industrial relations system.
The courts speak: precedent and principle
Judicial history is clear on this issue. In Sea Trucks (Nig.) Ltd v. Anigboro (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696)
159, the Supreme Court condemned employer interference in union matters, affirming that workers
have an unqualified right to organize. Likewise, in Osawe v. Registrar of Trade Unions (1985) 1
NWLR (Pt. 4) 755, the court upheld genuine trade union autonomy against administrative
manipulation.
The NICN has also evolved a robust doctrine against anti-union discrimination, often granting
reinstatement and damages where dismissals were proven to be retaliatory.
Testing Dangote’s case against the law
The refinery’s defense hinges on whether the sackings were motivated by union activity or
necessitated by business realities. If the former is the case, the action breaches:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 40 of the Constitution
Section 9 of the Labour Act
ILO Conventions 87 & 98
Several longstanding judicial precedents
On the flipside, if the latter, then Dangote must prove:
i.
ii.
iii.
Genuine economic reasons for the restructuring
Fair and transparent retrenchment procedure
Compliance with contractual notice and severance obligations
Mass dismissals conducted in secrecy or timed around union formation tend to fail this test, and the
burden of justification rests firmly on the employer.
What the workers can do
Under the National Industrial Court Act, affected workers and their union have multiple remedies
which include:
i.
ii.
iii.
Injunctions to halt further dismissals or anti‐union interference;
Reinstatement, where the court finds unlawful termination; and
Compensation or damages for unfair labour practices.
Recent NICN rulings have also underscored that constitutional breaches can attract not just civil
remedies, but public law consequences, as freedom of association is a fundamental right.
Beyond the refinery: why this case matters
The Dangote versus PENGASSAN dispute is more than a clash between a corporation and a union. It
is a stress test for Nigeria’s industrial rule of law. If a company as powerful as Dangote can dismiss
hundreds of workers around union activity without consequence, it risks setting a precedent that
shudders labour rights nationwide.
Conversely, if the courts find that the refinery acted lawfully, it will reinforce the principle that
restructuring, when done transparently and in good faith, remains within management’s
prerogative.
Either way, this case underscores the delicate balance between economic efficiency and
constitutional justice.
Conclusion (for now)
Until the NICN delivers a definitive ruling, the legality of the refinery’s mass sackings remains an
open question. However, one thing is settled in law and principle, which is to the effect that
freedom of association is not a managerial favour; it is a constitutional guarantee.
Employers may reorganize, restructure, and right-size. What they may not do is cross the red line
where efficiency becomes a cover for suppression.
Key References:
a) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended).
b) Labour Act, Cap L1 LFN 2004.
c) Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 LFN 2004.
d) Aero Contractors Co. v. NAAE (NIC, 2017).
e) Sea Trucks (Nig.) Ltd v. Anigboro (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 159
f) Osawe v. Registrar of Trade Unions (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 755.
g) ILO Conventions No 87 & 98; ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
(1998).