In a recent article, I argued that workers’ rights and union recognition at the Dangote Refinery must be respected and defended. That piece, titled “The Battle for Association: Examining Worker Rights and Union Recognition at the Dangote Refinery”, set out the case for why terminating workers linked to unions violates both the law and basic fairness.
Readers can find that first article here: https://princeolumidedada.
But as the debate around the refinery continues to attract national attention, it is clear that the conversation cannot stop at a simple pro-union stance. The truth is more complex. Nigeria needs both strong, effective unions and vibrant, competitive businesses.
When a project as massive and strategic as the Dangote Refinery becomes the flashpoint for industrial conflict, it forces us to ask harder questions: How do we protect freedom of association without crippling the operational viability of an enterprise that is meant to anchor national energy security?
How do we balance the sometimes conflicting interests of workers and employers in a way that is fair, lawful, and sustainable?
The Historical Backdrop
To appreciate the present conflict, it is important to recall Nigeria’s long and often turbulent labour history. From the colonial period to independence and beyond, unions have played outsized roles in national affairs.
The petroleum sector in particular gave birth to two powerful unions: the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN).
NUPENG, representing junior workers, became known for its ability to paralyse the economy with strikes, while PENGASSAN, representing senior and professional staff, carved out a strong voice in negotiations with both employers and government.
Together, they became not just defenders of workplace rights but also key actors in the broader political space, challenging military regimes and pushing for democratic reforms.
This tradition explains why attempts to sideline them, whether by companies or government, are met with fierce resistance.
Workers in Nigeria have historically relied on unions not only for wage bargaining but also for protection against arbitrary dismissals, unsafe workplaces, and exploitative contracts.
The Refinery as a National Project
The Dangote Refinery is no ordinary private business. Touted as Africa’s largest single-train refinery, with the capacity to process 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day, it has been framed as a game-changer for Nigeria’s economy.
Its promise includes reducing dependence on imported fuel, stabilising foreign exchange flows, creating jobs, and positioning Nigeria as a regional refining hub.
Because of its national significance, labour relations at the refinery cannot be viewed in isolation. Disputes that might ordinarily be contained within a factory or plant take on national implications when they occur in a project that affects fuel supply, government revenue, and investor confidence.
This is why the question of whether unions should be recognised, and how employees should be treated, resonates far beyond the perimeter of the refinery.
The Workers’ Perspective
From the standpoint of employees, unionisation is a lifeline. Many fear that without the collective protection of NUPENG or PENGASSAN, they will be at the mercy of unilateral employer decisions. This fear is not unfounded.
Nigerian labour law has long struggled with the balance between the employer’s right to terminate employment and the worker’s right to fair treatment.
Although the law now rejects the idea that employers may dismiss “at will,” enforcement remains uneven. Workers are often reluctant to pursue costly litigation, while employers sometimes take advantage of weak oversight.
For refinery workers, being able to bargain collectively through a recognised union is not simply a matter of tradition; it is a practical shield against arbitrary practices, whether in relation to contracts, working hours, safety conditions, or dismissals.
The Employer’s Perspective
On the other hand, management has valid concerns. Running a refinery of this magnitude requires massive capital investment, precision in operations, and constant attention to global market conditions.
Employers worry that excessive union influence may lead to frequent work stoppages, rigidities in workforce management, and disruptions that could undermine profitability and investor confidence.
Dangote Industries Limited is not only seeking to dominate the domestic fuel market but also to attract foreign buyers and partners. In such a competitive environment, the fear of prolonged strikes or politicised union activity is real.
Employers also argue that excessive union power in the past has sometimes led to a breakdown in dialogue, where industrial action was used as a first resort rather than a last.
The Law as an Arbiter
What makes the current conflict so pressing is that Nigerian law itself has evolved to mediate these tensions. The Constitution guarantees freedom of association, and the courts have increasingly affirmed that dismissing workers for union activities is unlawful.
Yet, at the same time, the law does not remove the employer’s right to discipline, restructure, or downsize, provided these are done fairly and in compliance with due process.
In other words, the law itself points towards balance. Workers are protected against victimisation, but employers retain the prerogative to run their businesses, so long as they do so without violating rights.
The problem lies not in the law but in the mistrust that exists between labour and management.
The Danger of Extremes
Nigeria’s industrial relations history offers lessons about the dangers of extremes. When unions are completely ignored or suppressed, workers feel alienated, morale declines, and productivity suffers. Such suppression often leads to underground organising, sudden wildcat strikes, or drawn-out litigation.
Conversely, when unions wield disproportionate power without responsibility, they may disrupt production, damage facilities, or insist on benefits that far exceed the company’s financial capacity. In both scenarios, the ultimate loser is the economy. For a project like the Dangote Refinery, which is expected to play a stabilising role in Nigeria’s fuel market, either extreme would be disastrous.
Towards a Culture of Dialogue
The way forward is to embrace structured dialogue. Union recognition should not be seen as a threat but as an opportunity to institutionalise negotiation.
Employers should engage with NUPENG and PENGASSAN in recognition agreements that define the scope of bargaining, set clear rules for dispute resolution, and outline procedures for strike action.
At the same time, unions must exercise restraint. The responsibility of protecting members does not mean disregarding the broader economic implications of industrial action. A strike at the Dangote Refinery would not only affect management but also the entire Nigerian economy, with ripple effects on fuel prices, transportation, and inflation.
The Role of Government
Government cannot remain a passive observer. Through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, it must act as a facilitator, ensuring disputes are referred early to mediation, conciliation, or arbitration. The National Industrial Court should continue to develop a jurisprudence that promotes fairness while discouraging bad-faith tactics on either side.
Government also has a stake as a regulator. Since the refinery is positioned as a strategic national asset, the state must ensure that labour relations there set an example for other employers. If unions are unfairly excluded, it undermines the credibility of Nigeria’s labour regime. If unions abuse their rights, it scares away investors. A balanced framework ensures neither scenario unfolds.
The Bigger Picture: Nigeria’s Labour Climate
The refinery dispute is a microcosm of a larger issue: how to modernise Nigeria’s labour relations for the 21st century. Many of our industrial practices remain stuck in adversarial traditions where employers and unions view each other as enemies.
What is needed instead is a partnership model, where both sides see themselves as stakeholders in national development.
In countries with mature labour systems, unions and employers have built mechanisms for social dialogue that reduce confrontation. Nigeria has made progress in this direction but still lags behind. The refinery could become a test case for showing that Nigerian unions and employers can collaborate without compromising on rights or efficiency.
A Call to Dangote
For Aliko Dangote and his management team, the path is clear. Suppressing union rights, directly or indirectly, will not only invite litigation but also risk reputational harm. Respecting unions, however, does not mean ceding control of the business. It means creating an environment of mutual respect where workers’ voices are heard, but decisions are still guided by operational realities.
By engaging with NUPENG and PENGASSAN constructively, Dangote could set a new standard in Nigerian industrial relations: one where corporate success and workers’ rights reinforce rather than undermine each other.
Conclusion
In my first article, I made the case for why union rights must be protected at all costs. That argument remains valid. But it is equally true that for Nigeria to thrive, unions and employers must move beyond confrontation towards balance.
The Dangote Refinery is too important to become a battleground of extremes. It must instead become a showcase of cooperation, where freedom of association coexists with business efficiency, and where the rights of workers strengthen rather than weaken national development.
The balance is not easy, but it is essential. For the refinery, for Nigerian workers, and for the country’s economic future, finding this balance is the only way forward.
Dada, Olumuyiwa Olumide
(ACIPM, HRPL) writes from Ibadan
Advertisement
