It was shaping up to be a showdown. The Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Direct Trucking Company Drivers Association were preparing to bring operations at Dangote Refinery to a standstill — a strike that could have disrupted fuel supply, price stability, and jobs. Doors, gates, tankers, all waiting.
But then, just hours before action, the gavel fell: the National Industrial Court in Abuja stepped in with an interim injunction restraining union actions.
This isn’t just another labor dispute. It is a telling moment where law, power, labor rights, and big business collide. The judge’s decision suspends possibility, but for many, it raises deeper questions: who benefits when strikes are blocked, what damage is “irreparable,” and how are workers’ rights balanced against corporate operations?
What the Court Ordered — Key Details
The National Industrial Court, through Justice E.D. Subilim, granted a seven-day interim injunction restraining NUPENG and its truck driver association from embarking on or compelling others to join any strike aimed at disrupting the operations of Dangote Refinery, MRS Oil Nigeria Plc, and its related oil and gas operations.
The injunction also prohibits blocking of roads, shutting down refinery operations, or frustrating business activities of the applicants (Dangote and affiliates).
The motion was ex parte (filed without notifying the respondents initially), followed by a Motion on Notice. The refinery’s lawyer (George Ibrahim SAN) argued that irreparable damage would result without judicial intervention.
The court also directed that the respondents be served within seven days, and the case to be assigned to another judge once the court’s vacation jurisdiction ends.
Why the Court Intervened — Legal Justifications & Stakes
Irreparable Damage: The court accepted that the refinery could suffer harm that could not be undone — in revenue, supply chain disruption, and national fuel stability.
Balance of Convenience: The judge considered who would suffer more between allowing the strike and stopping it. He decided Dangote’s operations and potential public harm outweighed the drivers’ protest rights in this context.
Constitutional and Legal Bounds: The applicants cited the Constitution (freedom of association) and the Trade Union Act, saying that while union rights exist, they must be exercised within legal parameters.
The court framed the dispute as one where preserving public interest may temporarily limit industrial action.
What NUPENG Claims — Workers’ Complaints & Allegations
Previously, NUPENG had suspended a nationwide strike after Dangote agreed to certain terms. But union drivers complained that some refinery instructions violated those agreements — for example, orders to remove union stickers and resume operations despite unresolved labor issues.
They also accused refinery officials of intimidation — including allegations of using security forces and aerial oversight (helicopter flights) as show of force. These alleged actions raised questions of worker safety and bargaining leverage.
A Strike Prevented, But Questions Remain
The court’s order has paused a battle that threatened disruption on a massive scale. For many Nigerians, that’s relief. For others, it’s a warning sign: that legal power might be used to silence labor before voices are heard.
You May Like: Four Senior FIRS Staff Killed in Afriland Towers Fire, Names Released
What remains to be seen is whether the court’s intervention leads to real negotiation, just legal skirmishes. Will Dangote address the union’s complaints about protocols and worker dignity? Will NUPENG find safe legal ground to assert their rights without threatening national supply?
For now, the refinery keeps running, but the debate over whose rights come first — workers or public service — is far from over.
