The National Industrial Court in Abuja has stepped in to stop the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) from going ahead with its planned industrial action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE.
Justice Emmanuel Subilim, in a ruling delivered on Monday, granted an interim order following an ex-parte application filed by Dangote Refinery.
The Nigeria National Petroleum Company Ltd (NNPCL), the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Authority, and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission were also listed as defendants in the case.
The order specifically restrains the unions and agencies from halting crude oil and gas supply to Dangote Refinery.
Through its lead counsel, Ogwu Onoja (SAN), the refinery asked the court to bar the defendants, their agents, and affiliates from carrying out or enforcing any directive that would cripple its operations, obstruct roads, or block supply of crude and gas.
Dangote Refinery argued that it provides essential services to the Nigerian economy and warned that a shutdown could trigger dire consequences for the nation’s energy security.
The company told the court that recent incidents of sabotage at the plant raised safety and health concerns, forcing management to carry out a reorganisation that led to the dismissal of some staff.
This decision, it said, was misrepresented online as a move against union members.
It maintained that with a workforce of over 3,000 Nigerians, only a negligible number were affected, and membership in unions was never in dispute.
However, PENGASSAN, through a letter signed by its General Secretary, Comrade Lamumba Okugbawa, threatened to “force Dangote Refinery to its knees” if the sacked staff — said to be more than 800 — were not recalled.
“The 1st Defendant issued a press statement on the 26th day of September, 2025 wherein it erroneously referred to the laying off of the workers by the Claimant as anti-labour practices, alleging that the workers were being victimized because they joined the 1st Defendant as members of the union which is not correct.
“Irrespective of the explanation offered by the Claimant in Exhibit DR3, the 1st Defendant became more provoked and directed its Executives and Members in the licensees of the 2nd – 4th Defendants through whom the Claimant accesses crude and gas for its plant to stop supplying gas to the Claimant.
“The 2nd – 4th Defendants are on standby to carry out the directives of the 1st Defendant through their agents and licensees as mentioned in Exhibit DR6 with a view to stopping the supply of gas and crude oil to the Claimant in order to halt its business and operation as threatened unless the Honourable Court intervenes.
“The 1st Defendant is going to make good its threat to shut down operations of the Claimant knowing the strength of its membership across the country unless the Honourable Court intervenes.
“The Claimant’s plant was constructed with over 20 Billion UD Dollars by its promoters to solve the energy problem of Nigeria that has been lingering for decades and has been sailing with good results to consumer satisfaction and have been making significant contribution to the economy of Nigeria, but the 1st Defendant if allowed to make good its threat will undoubtedly plunge Nigeria into the dark days of energy dearth and crisis and again, jeopardise the livelihood of the Nigerian’s end users and consumers and negatively impact on the economy.
“The 1st Defendant, its members and protegees in the services of the 2nd – 4th Defendants have perfected plans to embark on an industrial action which will cripple to operations and services of the Claimant to the Nigerian public as well as the economy.
“The 1st Defendant has not engaged the Claimant with respect to a dispute, if any, before championing and calling for an industrial action against the Claimant contrary to the extant laws of the Federal republic of Nigeria,” the claimant further averred.
Justice Subilim, ruling on the matter, said the balance of convenience was in favour of Dangote Refinery, noting that any strike action would cause irreparable damage to its operations and essential service delivery to the public.
He therefore restrained the defendants and ordered that they be served with the motion on notice.
The case was adjourned to October 13 for hearing, with the interim order set to last seven days.
