Lawyers Differ on NUPENG, Dangote Refinery Dispute

The ongoing dispute between the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers and the Dangote Petroleum Refinery has triggered a wave of divided opinions among Nigerian lawyers. At the heart of the matter is whether workers at the refinery, especially its truck drivers, should be free to associate with NUPENG or whether the terms of their employment can restrict such rights. While some lawyers argue that contracts entered into by workers should be binding, others believe the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association cannot be waived or taken away by any company policy.

Abuja-based lawyer and human rights advocate Frank Tietie explained that while the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of association, it also allows for the freedom not to associate. According to him, if Dangote Refinery makes it a condition of employment that it will not recognize unions, workers who accept those terms cannot later demand union involvement. He argued that such employees should resign if they disagree with the terms rather than insist on forming unions within the company. He also stressed that certain sectors of the economy, especially those regarded as essential services, are shielded from full-scale trade union activities to avoid disruption of critical public services. In his view, trade unions like NUPENG cannot impose themselves on private companies, particularly when they provide essential products such as fuel to the public.

Barrister Joseph Chinedu, however, disagreed, describing it as “outrightly illegal” for NUPENG to attempt to prevent non-union workers such as Dangote drivers from carrying out their duties. He argued that if the refinery is stopping its truck drivers from joining the union, such action also breaches Section 40 of the Constitution and provisions of the Trade Unions Act. He stressed that no employer has the right to coerce employees into or out of a union, and at the same time, trade unions cannot block non-members from working.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria George Ibrahim also weighed in, affirming that freedom of association is constitutionally protected. He said every Nigerian is free to join any association of their choice but cannot be forced to do so. He argued that it would be problematic for NUPENG to compel Dangote drivers to join its ranks, especially as they are directly employed by Dangote and have not complained about their contracts. He accused the union of acting as though it owned the trucks once drivers became members, which he described as illegal. However, he admitted that clauses in employment contracts barring unionism contradict international labor practices and may be viewed as unfair restrictions on workers’ rights.

Another Abuja-based lawyer, Chief Otunba Tunde Falola, examined the laws that apply to the conflict. He cited Section 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, as well as Section 9 of the Labour Act, which prohibits contracts that prevent workers from joining trade unions. He also referenced the Trade Unions Act, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, and the consistent position of the National Industrial Court in upholding the right of workers to unionize. Falola argued that if Dangote has been directing its drivers to remove NUPENG stickers or load products against agreed protocols, such actions could amount to union-busting and would contravene both the Constitution and the Labour Act. He warned that while NUPENG’s decision to place its members on red alert may be lawful, it should not degenerate into unlawful strike actions without due process. He added that allegations of anti-unionism, if true, could expose Dangote to liability for violating constitutional rights and labor laws.

From a broader perspective, Nigerian lawyer Chris Ekemezie, who practices in Canada, insisted that unionism is a universal practice entrenched in Nigerian law. He described any attempt to restrict it as undemocratic and unlawful. He explained that trade unions play a vital role in protecting workers from exploitation and that industrial courts were established largely to handle disputes that arise from union activities.

In response to the allegations, Dangote Refinery issued a statement stressing that it is not against unionism. The company explained that it recognizes the rights of workers to either join or not join a union, in line with the principle of voluntarism. It emphasized that while some workers may prefer to join a union, others may choose not to, and both groups deserve protection. The refinery maintained that it is committed to providing a safe and peaceful work environment and called on unions to respect those principles. Dangote also rejected claims that it seeks to monopolize the market, noting that more than 30 licenses have been issued to other private players, including BUA, Aradel, and Waltersmith, who are actively developing their own refineries.

NUPENG, however, has accused Dangote of violating agreements that were reached in the presence of government officials and security agencies. The union claimed that its members were forced to remove stickers from their trucks and to continue operations against previously agreed terms. It also alleged that attempts were made to intimidate union officials, leading it to place members on red alert. The union has since called on the Federal Government, civil society organizations, and international labor groups to intervene and safeguard workers’ rights.

The conflict between NUPENG and Dangote Refinery highlights the delicate balance between corporate interests, labor rights, and national economic stability. On one hand, the refinery argues that it needs stability to ensure uninterrupted fuel supply to millions of Nigerians. On the other hand, the union insists that workers must not be denied their rights to association and fair labor practices. With both sides holding firm to their positions, the matter may eventually require judicial interpretation or government mediation to prevent further industrial tension in the country.