by Olatunde Olayinka Damilola
It has always been ASUU but this time it is PENGASSAN, an acronym for Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN). On the 28th of September 2025, PENGASSAN ordered a nationwide strike, directing the interruption of gas supplies to Dangote refineries, in response to the dismissal of 800 Nigerian workers by the refinery. In the wake of this news, several opinions have trailed the actions of PENGASSAN and Dangote refinery, especially the impact of the strike on the masses who depends on processed petroleum product from Dangote refinery. It is with similar concern, that I have decided to view this melodrama between the disputing parties from a socio-legal perspective.
PENGASSAN in its press release alleged that the dismissal of 800 workers from Dangote refinery was an act of victimization, following the voluntary admission of these workers as members of the trade union. Although this claim was denied by DANGOTE, it would be logically berating not to establish a sufficient link between the dismissal of these workers and there recent membership of the union, especially since on 15th September 2025 the same refinery had a similar fisticuff with NUNPENG on the issue of unionism among its workforce of tanker drivers and other employees, which was settled by a peaceable but yet unconstitutional agreement.
Believing PENGASSAN’s claim to be true, it is my opinion that the dismissal of 800 workers for voluntarily joining a trade union falls short of provided constitutional safeguards on human right and labour protection. A conjunctive reading of section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 and section 12(4) of the Trade Union Act (Amendment Act) 2005, entitles every person or workers to assemble freely and associate with other persons to form or belong to trade union for the protection of their interests without victimization. The dismissal of these persons for joining a trade union therefore is a disrespect to human right and labour law under the law.
Moreover, while the excuse of economic and national stability concerns have been given severally by Dangote refineries for its attitude towards trade unionism, which in my opinion are genuine; knowing that Dangote refinery is significantly a national asset, although privately owned, and that union activities can sometimes have disruptive effects, it is important that the welfare of workers and the interest of consumers are nonetheless adequately protected through unionism in order to also avoid the danger of unchecked capitalism. Dangote refinery currently positions as a private monopoly in a country where state owned refineries are very dysfunctional. The implication of this strategic trade positioning therefore accrues so much control to the refinery over both the consumers and its workers. Therefore unionism is a necessary evil that must be allowed in order to avoid the dangers of arbitrary capitalism.
To further crystalize this point, it is my opinion that the dismissal of over 800 workers on the ground of “re-organization” exemplifies the refinery’s poor approach towards its workers job security. When 800 workers are thrown out of their job in an already escalating pandemic of unemployment and attendant insecurities in the country, it exercabates labor tension and puts the nation in socio-economic jeopardy. This singular act makes an excellent practical reason why trade unionism is necessary to protect the interest of the workers at the refinery in order to ensure adequate welfarism and also afford room for collective representation during trade disputes. In totality, the dismissal of 800 workers, even though it aligns with the right of an employer to hire and fire under common law, in my opinion constitute an act of modern slavery and abuse of monopolistic influence in this situation; the danger of unchecked capitalism. The exercise of right to unionism should be negotiated by Dangote refinery and not proscribed with forceful dismissals and scapegoating.
Meanwhile, not to throw the baby with the bathe water, it is also my opinion that PENGASSAN’s purported industrial actions are one which will not only hurt Dangote’s business but the masses. Suppliers of gas and crude prohibited by PENGASSAN directive of 27th of September are in essential service not to just Dangote Refinery but the nation as a whole. Section 48 of the Trade Dispute Act (First Schedule) classifies services in connection with the supply of fuel, whether owned by the government or private entities as essential services and disputes between players in these areas have specialized procedures to it, one which PENGASSAN must take notice of and comply.
Section 41 of the Trade Dispute Act especially requires that a notice of at least fifteen days must be given in case of an industrial action by persons in essential services. It is my opinion, that while the relationship of suppliers of gas with Dangote Refinery is not that of an employment but a contractual agreement, an action by gas suppliers in furtherance of a trade dispute in the interest of PENGASSAN will sufficiently bring it within the purview of this law. So far, PENGASSAN has failed to give sufficient notice and would be advised to rethink their action and consider issuing a proper notice in compliance with the law on trade dispute. An eye for an eye they say would make the whole world blind, lawlessness has never been an answer to lawlessness.
Furthermore, it is desirable in the interest of the nation that the Minister for Labour wade into the trade dispute. Section 17 of the Trade Dispute Act permits the Minister to apprehend labour disputes of this kind by referring it to the National Industrial Court or an arbitration panel. It is recommended especially that this dispute is apprehended over a round table where adequate settlement can be reached between both parties. If this fails, the parties should consider resolving this dispute by a speedy process using arbitration or a court hearing that would give the trial of the dispute an accelerated hearing.
Overall, while the PENGASSAN dispute and industrial action is a necessary evil to uphold worker’s right against oppressive policies, not so uncommon in most private sectors in Nigeria, and stop the situation of unchecked capitalism in Nigeria, the consequences of these dispute if not speedily resolved is one that might plunge the nation into dire economic repression owing to the most sector’s dependence on petroleum. It is therefore desirable that this dispute be settled amicably and timeously, of course, with one important outcome; that the right to association of the dismissed 800workers are not placed at the mercy of the crunching boots of unchecked capitalism.
Olatunde Olayinka Damilola is a public interest lawyer, with Tope Temokun Chambers.
