The National Industrial Court, Abuja, on Monday restrained the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) from embarking on its planned industrial action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE.
Justice Emmanuel Danjuma Subilim, in a ruling, barred the defendants from halting crude oil and gas supply to the Dangote Refinery.
Listed as defendants in the suit are the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.
Dangote Refinery, in an ex parte application filed by its counsel, George Ibrahim, secured the interim order against the defendants.
Ibrahim, in the motion, sought an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant (NNPCL), its members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, assigns or howsoever described, from directing or effecting a halt in the supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant.
He further prayed the Court to restrain them from embarking on any industrial action against the Claimant with the intention of crippling operations, blocking access roads, obstructing vehicular movement, or otherwise disrupting the operations of the Claimant or the licensees of the 2nd to 4th Defendants, as contained in the directives issued by the 1st Defendant on September 26, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
He also sought “an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd–4th Defendants, their employees, members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, licensees, assigns or howsoever described from giving effect to the directives of the 1st Defendant to halt the supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant; or joining, continuing, embarking on, or in any manner participating in the planned industrial action of the 1st Defendant and its affiliates or cronies or any other strike whatsoever against the Claimant/Applicant, with a view to frustrating its business and operations, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”
Ibrahim argued that the Applicant is a duly licensed petroleum production and distribution company, engaged in refining and producing petroleum and petrochemical products for general public consumption in Nigeria. He stressed that the company provides essential services critical to the Nigerian economy and the wellbeing of the public.
He further contended that in recent times, incidents of sabotage by some employees at the Claimant’s plant had raised grave health and safety concerns, necessitating a re-organisation exercise which led to the disengagement of some staff. This, he noted, was communicated to all employees through a memo dated September 25, 2025.
According to him, in the early hours of September 26, 2025, the Claimant became aware of reports circulating online alleging that Nigerian workers were dismissed simply because they joined the 1st Defendant’s union.
He said the management of the Claimant promptly issued a press statement refuting the allegation, clarifying that the company was not opposed to unionisation, which it recognises as a constitutional right. He emphasised that the refinery has over 3,000 Nigerians in its workforce and that only a negligible number of staff were affected by the reorganisation exercise, which was necessitated by acts of sabotage and safety concerns.
Counsel further told the Court that by a letter dated September 26, 2025, the 1st Defendant, through its General Secretary, Comrade Lamumba Ighotemu Okugbawa, wrote to the Honourable Minister of Petroleum and Gas, threatening that unless the affected staff were reinstated—alleged to be over 800—the union would take steps to bring the Claimant to its knees.
“The 1st Defendant issued a press statement on September 26, 2025, erroneously describing the disengagement exercise as anti-labour practices, and alleging that the workers were victimised for joining the union, which is patently incorrect,” Ibrahim submitted.
He added that, notwithstanding the Claimant’s clarifications, the 1st Defendant became further incensed and directed its executives and members in the licensees of the 2nd–4th Defendants, who supply crude oil and gas to the Claimant, to halt such supply as a means of paralysing its operations.
“The 2nd–4th Defendants are on standby to implement the directives of the 1st Defendant through their agents and licensees, with a view to cutting off supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant, thereby crippling its operations, unless this Honourable Court intervenes,” Ibrahim argued.
He further asserted that the 1st Defendant, aware of its membership strength across the country, was intent on carrying out its threat to shut down the Claimant’s operations unless restrained by the Court.
“The Claimant’s plant was constructed at a cost exceeding 20 billion US dollars by its promoters, to address Nigeria’s decades-long energy challenges. The refinery has been making substantial contributions to the economy and meeting consumer demand. If the 1st Defendant’s threat is carried out, Nigeria would be plunged back into the dark days of energy shortages, with devastating consequences for consumers and the economy,” he submitted.
According to him, the 1st Defendant and its members have perfected plans to embark on industrial action capable of crippling the Claimant’s services to the Nigerian public and the economy, without engaging in any formal dispute resolution with the Claimant as required by law.
In his brief ruling on the ex parte application, Justice Subilim held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Applicant, as the continuation of the threatened industrial action would irreparably damage its business and undermine the provision of essential services to the Nigerian public.
The judge ruled that it was in the interest of justice to restrain the Respondents in order to preserve industrial peace and safeguard the continuous provision of essential services pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Subilim accordingly granted the restraining order and directed that same be served on the defendants forthwith, together with the motion on notice.
The Court held that the order shall subsist for seven days only.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to October 13 for the hearing of the motion on notice.
The PUNCH
