News

Union Gloves vs Corporate Fists: The Dangote–NUPENG Showdown

Published

8 months ago

September 10, 2025

Editor

By Israel Adebiyi

The impasse between the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Dangote Refinery has at last been calmed, thanks to the intervention of the Federal Government. For days, the matter stirred debates in homes, offices, and market squares, with Nigerians asking where the truth lay. At first glance, it seemed to be a straightforward struggle for workers’ rights, but beneath the chants of solidarity and the stern defenses of corporate efficiency lies a bigger question about where our national interest truly resides.

The constitutional foundation is clear. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides that “every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.” On the surface, therefore, NUPENG’s position that workers in the Dangote Refinery should have the right to unionize appears unassailable. Rights, however, do not operate in isolation; they must be exercised with responsibility and with due regard for broader societal implications.

Dangote, on his part, argued from the perspective of efficiency, discipline, and streamlined management. His position reflects the concern of many private investors in Nigeria who see unions not always as partners in progress but as instruments of disruption. The fear is not theoretical. The country has endured decades of industrial actions that cripple essential services, often at great cost to the very citizens unions claim to protect. In this light, Dangote’s resistance may not be a desire to trample on rights, but rather an attempt to avoid the familiar cycle of strikes and standoffs that have strangled other vital sectors.

This tension raises an important question about the role of unions in Nigeria today. Historically, unions have been the moral compass of industrial society. They emerged to fight exploitation, to ensure fair wages, and to secure humane conditions of service. In many parts of the world, they remain engines of progress and defenders of justice. But the Nigerian experience has too often revealed another picture. For decades, our government-owned refineries remained in comatose state, swallowing billions of dollars in endless turnaround maintenance exercises without yielding a single barrel of refined product. Salaries were still paid, union offices remained open, but the voice of labour was curiously faint. There were no nationwide pickets demanding accountability, no strikes to compel government action, no campaigns to rescue the sector from ruin. Silence prevailed. The unions were alive, but they appeared comfortable in a system that rewarded failure.

Contrast that with the arrival of a private giant, a refinery built with vision, audacity, and sheer resilience against Nigeria’s hostile investment climate. Suddenly, the unions rediscovered their voice. They sang solidarity songs and raised placards, anchoring their grievance not on unpaid salaries or unsafe conditions, but on the right to membership. It is here that many Nigerians began to sense hypocrisy. Where was this passion when government after government wrecked our refineries and denied Nigerians the dignity of energy sufficiency? Why does the urgency to act appear strongest only when a private-sector initiative threatens the comfort zones of labour cartels? As the adage goes, “It is not every shout of fire that comes from a burning house; sometimes it comes from a kitchen disturbed.”

The problem with this form of unionism is that it begins to mirror the same oppression it claims to fight. In many Nigerian markets, traders’ unions act as cartels, fixing prices, intimidating dissenters, and distorting the natural balance of willing seller and willing buyer. Instead of protecting livelihoods, they suffocate them. This is not unlike the present standoff in the oil and gas sector, where the noble idea of protecting workers’ rights appears entangled with the less noble ambition of protecting turf and revenue through membership dues. The ordinary Nigerian is left wondering: who union help? The buyer who cannot afford inflated prices? The worker whose voice is often drowned in the politics of union executives? Or the society that pays the price when productivity is disrupted?

None of this suggests that Dangote should be sanctified or given a blank cheque. Investors, no matter how ambitious or patriotic, are not immune to the temptations of overreach. It is possible to seek efficiency at the expense of fairness, or to pursue discipline at the cost of liberty. The Constitution must be respected, and the rights of workers must not be undermined in the name of corporate ambition. But balance is essential. Rights must coexist with responsibility, and unions must rediscover their higher calling.

The bigger picture is what should concern us most. Nigeria stands at a crossroads. A working refinery capable of reducing our import bills, creating jobs, stabilizing the naira, and boosting our pride is a national priority. Any action, whether from unions or from corporate actors, that frustrates this goal is ultimately against the interest of the people. The adage says, “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” In this case, the elephants are NUPENG and Dangote, and the grass is the Nigerian people, weary from years of fuel scarcity, inflation, and economic hardship.

What is needed is not confrontation but cooperation. Strong unions can and should coexist with strong companies. Around the world, the most competitive firms are often those that engage constructively with organized labour, ensuring that productivity and fairness walk hand in hand. Nigerian unions must learn to wield their power not as a bludgeon but as a lever for progress. They must fight for safety, equity, inclusiveness, and opportunity, not merely for compulsory membership. Investors, in turn, must recognize that respecting rights and upholding dignity is not a burden but a foundation for long-term stability.

In the end, the test is simple: which path best serves Nigerians? Not the preservation of union dues, not the preservation of corporate control, but the preservation of national interest. If unions can return to their nobility and investors can temper ambition with fairness, then the people win. And that, in the final analysis, is the only victory that matters.

News

Xenophobic Attacks: Oshiomhole Tells FG To Retaliate Against South African Companies In Nigeria

Published

9 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

Senator Adams Oshiomhole has called on the Federal Government to retaliate against South African businesses operating in Nigeria following the recent attacks on Nigerians in South Africa.

Speaking during plenary on Tuesday, Oshiomhole said the Federal Government should consider revoking the working license of South African owned companies such as MTN and DSTV.

He argued that Nigeria must respond firmly to what he described as persistent hostility against its citizens.

“I am not going to shed tears. If you hit me, I hit you. I think it is appropriate in diplomacy. It is an economic struggle,” Oshiomhole said.

He argued that while some South Africans accuse Nigerians of taking their jobs, Nigerians should return home and take over employment opportunities created by major South African companies operating in the country, including MTN and DSTV.

“When we hit back, the President of South Africa will not only talk but will also go on his knees to recognise that Nigeria cannot be intimidated.

“We will not condone any life being lost. If a crime has been committed under the South African law they have the right to bring any such person to justice, but to kill our people as if we are helpless, we will not allow that,” Oshiomhole added.

DAILY POST reports that several Nigerians in South Africa have reportedly been attacked, and their businesses destroyed, in ongoing xenophobic attacks in the country.

News

IGP Orders Officers Display Name Tag On Uniform, Gives Update On State Police

Published

9 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

The Inspector General of Police, IGP, Tunji Disu, has ordered all police personnel to always have their name tags on their uniforms for easy identification.

Disu disclosed that only police personnel who are undercover are exempted from displaying their name tags.

Speaking on Tuesday, Disu said: “All police officers should have their name tags. All of us on the high table have our names apart from the undercover among us so if you look at all the Commissioners of Police we have our name tags, so it’s not our standard.

News

Court Orders SERAP To Pay DSS Operatives N100m For Defamation

Published

14 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has ordered a non-governmental organization, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, to pay N100 million as damaged to two operatives of the Department of the State Services, DSS, for unjustly defaming them in some publications.

The court also ordered SERAP to tender public apologies to the defamed officers,
Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, in two national newspapers, two television stations and its website.

Besides, the organization was also ordered to pay the two operatives N1 million as cost of litigation and 10 percent post-judgment interest annually on the judgment sum until it’s fully liquidated.

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory gave the order on Tuesday while delivering judgment in a N5.5 billion defamation suit instituted against SERAP by the DSS operatives.

The judge found SERAP liable for unjustly defaming the two DSS operatives with allegations that they unlawfully invaded its Abuja office, harassed and intimidated its staff, in September 2024.

In the offending publication on its website and Twitter handle, SERAP alleged that the two operatives unlawfully invaded and occupied its office with sinister motives.

The judge held that the publication was in bad taste especially from an organization established to promote transparency and accountability, as nothing in the publication was found to be truthful.

The DSS staff had listed SERAP as 1st defendant in the suit marked CV/4547/2024. SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, was listed as the 2nd defendant.

In the suit, the claimants – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – accused the two defendants of making false claims that they invaded SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024..

Counsel to the DSS, Oluwagbemileke Samuel Kehinde, had while adopting his final address in the mater urged the judge to grant all the reliefs sought by his client in the interest of justice.

He admitted that although the names of the two claimants were not mentioned in the defamation materials, they had however established substantial circumstances that they are the ones referred to in the published defamation article by SERAP on its website.

The counsel submitted that all ingredients of defamation have been clearly established and the offending publication referred to the two officials of the secret police.

However, SERAP, through its counsel, Victoria Bassey from Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, law firm, asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the two claimants did not establish that they were the ones referred to in the alleged defamation materials.

She said that SERAP used “DSS officials” in the alleged offending publication, adding that the two claimants must establish that they are the ones referred to before their case can succeed.

Similar arguments were canvassed by Oluwatosin Adefioye who stood for the second defendant, adding that there was no dispute in the September 9, 2024 operation of DSS in SERAP’s office.

He said that since SERAP in the publication did not name any particular person, the claimants must plead special circumstances that they were the ones referred to as the DSS officials.

Besides, he said that there is no organization by name Department of State Services in law, hence, DSS cannot claim being defamed adding that the only entity known to law is National Security Agency.

The claimants had in the suit stated that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted on their reputation.

The DSS also stated, in the statement of claim, that, in line with the agency’s practice of engaging with officials of non-governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials – John and Ogunleye – to visit SERAP’s office and invite them for a familiarization meeting.

The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP’s management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.

John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said before they immediately exited SERAP’s office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation’s management about the visit and volunteered a phone number – 08160537202.

They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle – @SERAPNigeria – that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.

The claimant added, “On the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP’s website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark skinned man,” invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).

John and Ogundele stated that “due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as the Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN)”.

“Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants.”

They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to their reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation and are therefore, incompetent and unprofessional.

The claimants therefore prayed the court for the following reliefs: “An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5 billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.

“Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50 million as costs of this action.”