In this exclusive interview with CHRISTIAN APPOLOS, Comrade Benson Upah, the Acting General Secretary of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), explains what led to the ongoing face-off between Dangote Refinery and the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), and why the right of workers to unionise must never be compromised.
Talking about the Dangote Refinery/NUPENG ongoing face-off, what actually ignited the crisis?
The crux of the matter is that Dangote Refinery refused to allow its employees to join existing trade unions. Initially, NUPENG had begun discussions with the refinery’s management about its intention to unionise workers. There was some engagement at first, but along the line, the process was abruptly halted because Dangote Refinery began taking steps to set up its own union for the workers.
The labour law is very clear: an employer cannot establish a union for workers. At that point, relations between the refinery’s management and NUPENG broke down, and NUPENG threatened to embark on strike action. The matter was later apprehended by the Minister of Labour and Employment. That, in summary, is what led to this current dispute.
At what point, if any, did NUPENG exceed its rights in this dispute?
I was privileged to lead the labour team that met with the Ministers of Labour and Employment, Dangote Refinery representatives, industry regulators, and other stakeholders. From what transpired at that meeting on September 8, it was very clear that NUPENG acted entirely within its legal rights to unionize employees of the refinery.
Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution (1999, as amended) guarantees every citizen the right to form or join associations and unions. The Labour Act also explicitly protects the right of workers to freely join unions. Beyond our national laws, international instruments such as ILO Conventions 87 and 98, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, provide robust protections for workers’ right to unionise and engage in collective bargaining.
There are also precedents. All four state-owned refineries and virtually every oil company operating in Nigeria have unions. Why should Dangote Refinery be treated differently? The law even recognizes the right of unions to take industrial action as a legitimate bargaining tool. In essence, NUPENG did not, at any point, go beyond its constitutional and legal mandate.
During the meeting with Dangote Refinery management, what reasons were given for refusing to allow workers to join NUPENG or any other union?
The management of Dangote Refinery was very direct during the meeting, which lasted several hours. They insisted that NUPENG would not be allowed to unionize their workers for two main reasons.
First, they claimed they already provide excellent welfare for their employees:good pay, pension schemes, health insurance, and other benefits, and therefore saw no need for union representation. We made it clear to them that NUPENG is not an employer of labour. Its role is to unionize workers and collectively defend their rights and interests, not to replace management functions.
Second, they argued that the refinery is located in an Export Processing Zone (EPZ). In fact, they bluntly stated that the refinery is ‘not on Nigerian territory,’ suggesting that Nigerian labour laws do not fully apply there. We challenged this position by asking whether the law that created EPZs suspended the Nigerian Constitution or Labour Act in those zones. If they truly believe national laws do not apply, then they must accept that international labour laws take precedence, and those laws also guarantee workers’ right to unionize.
In the end, Dangote Refinery could not provide any proof that the Nigerian Constitution or labour laws are suspended in EPZs. Their argument simply fell flat.
Does an employer have the right to stop employees from joining a union or form a union on their behalf? Can a union freely approach a company to organize its workers?
As I pointed out earlier, the law is very clear on this matter. Employers have no right whatsoever to seduce, coerce, or manipulate workers into joining or not joining a union. They also cannot form or dictate the creation of a union for workers.
If an employer, for example, tells workers, ‘If you don’t join a union, I will pay you N80,000, but if you do, I’ll reduce your pay or sack you,’ that is outright coercion and illegal. Workers must be free to decide voluntarily whether to belong to a union, without threats or inducements.
Likewise, employers cannot create obstacles to prevent union officials from accessing workplaces to interact with workers. That would constitute a direct violation of labour laws. To put it plainly, NUPENG was fully within its legal rights to engage Dangote Refinery in an effort to unionize its workers. Dangote Refinery, on the other hand, has no right to stop this process or to establish a parallel union for its employees. Doing so is a clear breach of the law.
What would happen if employers were allowed to stop workers from joining unions or form their own unions for workers?
It would result in the highest level of impunity. It would turn the Nigerian Constitution on its head, lead to widespread injustice, and open the door to systematic manipulation and abuse of workers’ rights.
During the meeting with the Ministers of Labour, a member of the Dangote delegation even argued that trade unions should not exist in the refinery because the project was ‘birthed by reforms.’ He went further to claim that unions were responsible for the collapse of Nigeria’s existing refineries and would harm the Dangote Refinery.
We made it clear that such arguments were completely false and historically inaccurate. Reforms, whether moderate, liberal, or radical, do not erase workers’ rights or unions. In fact, unions are vital in market economies. Look at advanced economies like the United States, the UK, France, Japan, and Canada. Unions exist in every sector, from manufacturing to domestic services.
As for Nigeria’s refineries, workers were not responsible for their collapse. The real culprits were those behind fraudulent turnaround maintenance scams and destructive policies. Even now, during the ongoing probe of the NNPC, how many workers have been summoned to testify? None. Regarding the textile industry, it collapsed due to three main factors: dumping of foreign products, rising energy costs, and lack of innovation, none of which were caused by workers. In fact, unions fought against these very policies.
It is completely unfair to demonize unions or workers just to keep them out of the Dangote Refinery. We reminded Dangote’s team that unions even supported him in the past when he faced obstacles. We advocated for the government to assist him so the refinery could succeed and help make petroleum products available to Nigerians at affordable costs. Our goal has never been to undermine his business but to see it grow in line with the law.
Why do unions exist in the first place? What role do they play for workers?
Unions exist to protect the interests of workers through collective bargaining and social dialogue. This goes beyond wages to include pensions, health and safety, job security, and dignity in the workplace.
Historically, unions have been central to the development of capitalism. Social welfare policies such as unemployment benefits and subsidies, which unions fight for, are what keep economies stable. Without these protections, public anger would boil over into unrest or revolutions. That’s why countries like the US and the UK maintain welfare systems, even though they often advise countries like Nigeria to remove subsidies. These measures are not acts of charity; they are designed to maintain stability.
Why is it important for the government to protect unions’ right to organize workers?
The government has a constitutional duty to protect its citizens and their rights. It must also ensure that national laws are enforced and that institutions function effectively. When the government fails in this duty, chaos and self-help will take over.
Unfortunately, we often see governments prioritize foreign investors over the rights of their citizens, as though investment must come at any cost. This is both wrong and dangerous. Foreign investment, like any investment, must operate under the laws of the host country. Ironically, the very countries these investors come from have vibrant unions and frequent protests. If the capital is not afraid of unions there, it should not be afraid of unions here.
The government must therefore defend the constitutional rights of its citizens, ensure the rule of law is upheld, and never trade away those rights under the guise of attracting foreign investment.