Article Written by Barr. Peter Odu

Last night, as I joined a long queue for fuel in Wuse, Abuja, it struck me that the scarcity was not just about supply. It was the ripple effect of a labour dispute inside the country’s most critical refinery, a dispute now testing the limits of Nigeria’s industrial relations framework.

What feels like another round of scarcity is, in fact, the fallout from Dangote Refinery’s alleged dismissal of workers seeking to unionize, a move now facing pushback from PENGASSAN.

The Core Legal Issues

This dispute raises a sharper legal question: can existing labour laws adequately resolve conflicts in strategic industries without risking wider economic disruption?

1. PENGASSAN’s Position

PENGASSAN’s position rests on the workers’ constitutional and statutory rights. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of association, including the right to join trade unions for collective bargaining. In addition, Section 9(6)(b) of the Nigerian Labour Act prohibits the dismissal of workers on the basis of union membership or activity.

2. Dangote’s Position

Dangote Refinery’s management has framed its position around the duty to keep operations running in the national interest. In its public statement, the company described PENGASSAN’s shutdown directive as unlawful because it bypassed the procedures in the Trade Disputes Act. Under Section 18(1) of the Act, strikes are unlawful unless remedies provided have first been exhausted. Dangote also grounds its position in Section 45(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which allows fundamental rights including freedom of association to be limited in the interest of public safety and order.

Why This Dispute Matters More Than a Refinery

This is not just an internal HR issue. It tests whether Nigerian labour law can balance:

a. Workers’ rights to organize and demand fair treatment;
b. Employers’ rights to run their business efficiently; and
c. The state’s duty to safeguard the economy when one private dispute risks becoming a national crisis.

When one company wields this much influence, disputes inside its gates become disputes at the pump, in homes, and across the economy.

A Global Mirror: The UK Rail Strikes

Britain recently faced waves of rail strikes that paralysed transport. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, strikes were lawful if ballots and notice procedures were followed. However, the disruption was so severe that in 2023, Parliament passed the Minimum Service Levels Act, compelling essential services like rail to maintain a skeletal operation even during strikes.

The message is clear. When private disputes spill into national paralysis, the law should adapt. For Nigeria, the refinery dispute raises the same question: should there be a “minimum supply or operations law” for critical industries?

So What Next?

Nigeria’s labour laws were designed in a different industrial era, before any single private employer could so directly affect national energy security. The Dangote Refinery dispute exposes a gap in that framework. Perhaps it is time to think differently:

a. There should be a legal framework that treats Critical Infrastructure as a distinct category, with special dispute-resolution rules to ensure swift resolution, uninterrupted service, and protection of national stability.

b. We could borrow from the UK approach to ensure essential flows continue during disputes. This could mean maintaining a guaranteed baseline of operation during disputes and preventing disproportionate harm to the public while labour rights are protected.

Close

If a single refinery can halt national supply, then the law must evolve to match that reality. Critical infrastructure needs critical rules before the next dispute costs even more.

Editors Note:

Peter Odu is an associate at Hamu Legal, advising on corporate commercial and technology transactions. He is a Global Shaper with the World Economic Forum and co-founder of The Legal Playbook