Connect with us

Top Story

Confusion, as Court orders ASUU to end 7-month strike

Published

on

…No victor, no vanquished, ruling is win-win  in nation’s interest – FG

…Court order betrays equity, cannot resolve contesting problem – NANS

…Threatens to disrupt political campaigns

…Industrial Court order not final – ASUU

By Moses Adeniyi, Ridwan Adekunle, Deborah Onatunde

The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has been held amidst legal contemplations following a court verdict ordering the Union to call off its over seven months old strike – a development that has plunged the Union into a dilemma of legal  entanglements.

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, ordered the aggrieved University lecturers under ASUU to call off the strike action in a ruling that was delivered by Justice Polycarp Hamman.

The ruling followed an application the Federal Government filed for an interlocutory order to compel ASUU which embarked on strike action since February 14, 2022, to return to the classroom.

FG’s lawyer, Mr. James Igwe had prayed the court to order the aggrieved  lecturers to in the interim, return to work, pending the determination of the substantive suit before the court.

He maintained that the matter was not only urgent, but of a great national interest as millions of students have been at home for over seven months.

“Sections 47 of the Trade Dispute Act, TDA, gives your lordship the power to direct that no worker should continue to embark on strike pending when the applications are heard and determined,” he argued.

He contended that under section 18(1)E of the TDA, employees, could not continue a strike action, when a matter is already referred to the industrial court for adjudication.

Igwe submitted that there was need for the matter to be expeditiously determined to enable university students  return to school, adding that failure to call off the strike would cause irreparable damage to not only the students but also to the nation.

According to him, since the dispute between FG and lecturers is already before the court for adjudication, it would be proper and in the interest of justice for the strike to be suspended.

Counsel to FG, Mr J.U.K Igwe, SAN, in his submission had informed the court that the application for the injunction was predicated on 11 ground, supported by 21 paragraph affidavit deposed to Mr Okechukwu Wampa, a Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, attached with three exhibits and an undertaking as to damages deposed to by Wampa.

ASUU’s counsel, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, tabled before the court, a nine paragraph counter-affidavit filed on Sept. 16 deposed to by the president of ASUU, arguing that the minister lacked the power to order the court in the referral to direct ASUU to call off its strike.

He submitted that the balance of convenience was not on the side of the claimants and that the conduct of the claimants in the prayer for the court to interpret the 2009 Agreement should be discountenanced.

In his ruling, Justice Hamman held that FG’s application was meritorious and deserved to be granted by the court.

The court dismissed objections raised by ASUU’s lawyer, Falana, SAN,  ruling that the strike action was detrimental to public university students that cannot afford to attend private tertiary institutions.

“The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant. I hold that this application is meritorious and this application is granted,” Justice Hamman ruled.

The court, thereafter, issued an order, restraining ASUU, “whether by themselves, members, agents, privies or howsoever called, from taking further steps and doing any act in continuance of the strike action, pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed.”

Recall that ASUU had embarked on an initial four weeks warning strike to press home its long demands that included an improved funding for universities, as well as a review of salaries for lecturers.

It subsequently extended the strike action indefinitely on August 29, 2022 following the breakdown of negotiations between the union and the government.

Major issues in contention between FG and ASUU are the non-implementation of a Memorandum of Action (MoA) signed in December 2020 on funding for the revitalisation of the public universities; non-payment of Earned Academic Allowances of lecturers; non-renegotiation of a 2009 agreement and government’s refusal to deploy the University Transparency and Accountability Solution (UTAS) as a platform for payment of ASUU members’ wages.

While ASUU accused FG of not being sincere in its negotiation, the Government, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, approached the court to compel the striking lecturers to return to the classroom.

FG in its move to clip ASUU by legal restraint, specifically, prayed the court to, “interpret in its entirety the provisions of Section 18 LFN 2004, especially as it applies to the cessation of strike once a trade dispute is apprehended by the Minister of Labour and Employment and conciliation is ongoing.”

It prayed for, “an order of the Court for ASUU members to resume work in their various universities while the issues in dispute are being addressed by the NICN in consonance with the provisions of Section 18 (I) (b) of the TDA Cap T8. LFN 2004.”

ASUU had in a counter-affidavit it filed before the court, opposed the suit on the premise that the Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr. Chris Ngige, lacked the power to order the court in the referral to direct it to call off the strike action.

ASUU’s lawyer, Falana, SAN, had argued that such referral amounted to a directive from the Minister to the court.

He maintained that neither a Minister nor the President could wield such powers as to control a court of competent jurisdiction.

More so, Falana, SAN, argued that FG failed to follow due process as stipulated in part 1 of TDA 2004.

According to him, the law, provided that such matter must first pass through the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) before landing at the NIC.

Falana argued that ASUU would not have embarked on strike had it been the government kept to various agreements and Momoradum of Understanding (MoU) it signed with the union in the past.

Justice Hamman dismissed the objections and ordered the aggrieved  lecturers to in line with provisions of the TDA, return to the classroom, pending the final determination of the suit before the court.

…Legal implications

On the dilemma before ASUU, legal  practitioners have shed light on the possibility of ASUU appealing the ruling of the Court, particularly when there is a pending motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

The dilemma would be for ASUU to either comply with the order or appeal the ruling, since disregarding the order is an option out of place for the lecturers.

On the enforceability pf Section 254C (1) sub (j) (i) bothering on collective agreement over which ASUU has been agitating since 1992, it has been argued that the court should have considered the non-implementation of the failing of collective agreement between ASUU and the Federal Government.

The Federal Government had on September 8, 2022, dragged ASUU to the NICN, Abuja, over the strike, seeking to compel the union members to return to the classrooms.

It also asked NiCN to determine whether it was right or wrong for ASUU to insist on payment of its members’ salaries for the period they have been off duty.

The court ruling, however, is coming at a time the National Assembly commenced move to intervene in the matter.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila had on Tuesday mentioned that the strike would soon be over as contentious issues have been considered for possible agreement.

Gbajabiamila who gave the hint after meeting behind closed doors with ASUU leadership and the Minister of State for Education, Goodluck Oppiah in Abuja, said having met with critical stakeholders, the outcome of the deliberations would be presented to President Muhammadu Buhari upon his return to the Country from the United Nations General Assembly.

“As I said earlier, ours is to interface directly with ASUU as an independent arm of government to find out exactly the details and how solutions can be offered like they said two heads are better than one.

“Now that the legislature has come in, we are very hopeful based on our deliberations in the last four or five hours that there is light at the end of the tunnel,” the speaker had said.

…No victor, no vanquished, ruling is win-win situation in nation’s best interest — FG

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has described the ruling ordering ASUU to discontinue its strike as a win-win situation which is in the best interest of the nation.

This is just as the government also said that it would order the Vice Chancellors to reopen public universities in compliance with the order.

Speaking while he received members of the Nigerian Association of Medical and Dental Academics (NAMDA) in his office on Wednesday, the Minister of Labour and Employment, Senator Chris Ngige, said that the court ruling would not however, preclude further negotiation between the Federal Government and ASUU.

According to him, “The ruling is in the best interest of the nation. It is a win-win situation for all of us- government, students, lecturers- all Nigerians indeed.

“I have just gotten the order of court asking ASUU to go back to work. It is a sound judgment. It is no victor, no vanquished. You doctors in academics are for now members of ASUU, but, you are here, even though you have dissociated yourself and you are working. We want to thank you for working and teaching your students.

“The court ruling does not preclude us from going on with further negotiation and consultations.

“The pro-chancellors met Mr. President and made some demands, such as topping up government offer and seeing whether there could be some bailout. Mr. President said in considering it, he will consult stakeholders. So, he is going to consult everybody.”

Ngige who welcomed the intervention of the House of Representatives in the ASUU contest, said the intervention was timely considering that the President must have also consulted some stakeholders, adding that whatever money to be put in would go into the 2023 appropriation where the National Assembly comes in.

“If they have shown interest now, it is good and wonderful. When they bring that proposal, the Executive will not have any problem. ASUU should also know that this is a step in the right direction. And all these things have been promised them by the Minister of Education at their last meeting with him. For me, they should do the needful and get back to classroom,” he said.

He said the government would order the vice chancellors to reopen the universities in compliance with the order of court.

“The government would order the Vice Chancellors to reopen the universities in compliance with the order.

“Whenever there is hostility between employer and employee and conciliatory processes in motion, that has not been satisfactorily done to achieve peace and tranquility in the industrial enterprise in consonance, with Section 4 (6), the Minister of Labour, by Section 17, will transmit it to the National Industrial court for final adjudication.

“And once the transmission is done just like when apprehension is done by the Minister, the parties will return to status quo ante bellu and that is why we asked the court to look at this issue and look at the interlocutory injunction asked for by the federal government and pronounce that these these workers should go back and that these employers should open up the classrooms and the  laboratories and everywhere for the students to go and benefit from the education.

“The court saw with government and granted the request and even in granting the request, they said it is of national importance to the development of education, and for the protection of rights of our children. To education, that the teachers so employed to teach them should go back and start teaching them pending the resolution of the issues raised from my office as issues in disputes.

“We listed them for the courts, seven of them, some of them about five of them conciliated, here satisfactorily for ASUU even during the strike,” he said.

On the insinuation that ASUU was contemplating to appeal the ruling, he said, “Appealing, the order is within their rights to do so. But I don’t think it is a good step, because  this court order ruling does not stop us from further negotiations.

“As a matter of fact, the trajectory, like I said earlier is that the courts, in looking at the issues will constitute a panel either a panel of the courts, or what is called ‘alternative dispute resolution Panel,’ to look at the issues one by one.

“If the alternative dispute resolution panel is used, they will also make their report to the court, and the judge will make a pronouncement on it

“I don’t know now but it is at the discretion of the court. So, appealing it  (order of court) is neither here nor there. I don’t see anything that is injurious to anybody to necessitate such an appeal.”

…Decision of Industrial Court not final — ASUU

In reaction to the court order, ASUU  in a statement signed by its Lagos Zonal Coordinator, Dr Adelaja Odukoya, quoted the National President, Professor Emmanuel Osodeke, as saying, “our lawyer is filing an appeal and stay of execution of the judgment.”

According to the statement titled, “NICN back to work order on ASUU: Be calm,” Osodeke urged the aggrieved university teachers to remain calm as there is no cause for alarm on the back-to-work order delivered on Wednesday.

“Members should remain resolute and strong. A people united can never be defeated. Solidarity without compromise,” he stated.

Osodeke while featuring Wednesday night on Channels TV Politics Today, said the decision of the NICN is not final as the Union is consulting for the next line of action.

“The beauty of Nigeria’s legal system is that there are steps. The first step is Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

“So as a union, we will have to  sit down, we’ll hear from our solicitor, our lawyer, and our members, and then we’ll take the next step. The  decision of the industrial Court is not final.”

“We are union of intellectual. We have to remember that we’re not emotional. He (the court) has the right to give a judgement.”

…Court order betrays equity, cannot resolve problems – NANS

Meanwhile,  the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) on Wednesday faulted the court judgement ordering ASUU to call of its 7-month strike, saying it would not solve the outstanding problems.

Reacting to the ruling in a statement, NANS National Public Relations Officer, Giwa Temitope, said the judgement betrays equity.

The student union spokesperson explained that rather than direct ASUU to return to classroom, the court should have ordered the Federal Government to sort the striking lecturers.

According to the students union, the fact that they had to drag ASUU to court is a signal that this government cannot handle crisis.

The statement read, “Our attention has been drawn to a news of a court judgment mandating the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to call of its 7 month strike.

“As an association, we feel disturbed to read the news of the judgment because we believe that it betrays equity.

“Ordinarily, the Federal Government is not meant to have dragged ASUU to court. But, the fact that they had to drag ASUU to court is a signal that this government cannot handle crisis.

“And, we want to state categorically that the court cannot force members of ASUU back to lecture theatres.

“And, as it stands today, with that court judgment, we maintain that the court has not resolved the problem and we reject the judgment in strong terms.

“The court could have said that the Federal Government should go and pay rather than say that lecturers who are on strike should go back to classrooms.

“We were expecting the court to have understood that lecturers are on contract of personal service hence, they cannot be compelled to render a service they don’t want to render.

“The only remedy to this strike action is for the Federal Government to accede to the demands of ASUU which the government willingly entered into with them and properly fund education.”

…threatens to disrupt political campaigns

Meanwhile, the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) on Wednesday further threatened that  it would disrupt political campaigns slated to start later this month in pressing home their demand for the Federal Government to end the ongoing ASUU strike.

In a press conference on Wednesday, the Chairman, NANS National Taskforce on #EndASUUStrikeNow, Ojo Olumide, emphasized the students’ resolve to continue the protest until the strike is called off.

“For those misconstruing our struggle, we call on them to see reason with Nigerian Students and join us in the struggle to save public education in the country.

“The leadership of NANS demands a better deal for the education of the Nigerian masses because most of the children of the privileged few now study either overseas or in Private Universities established with our common wealth across the country by the same set of people we entrusted to govern us. This is more reason they will continue to turn deaf ears to the demand by ASUU for improved standards and conditions of learning in our public higher institutions.

“Our blocking of access to public roads and ports is just a warning. If the government fails to conclude all the negotiations and agreement with ASUU within the frame of two weeks, they will witness more protests and rallies all over the country, they will also witness the annoyance, anger, and frustration of Nigerians Students who have been at home for the past seven months,” the statement read.

The students had recently taken their demonstration to roads and airports,  including the Lagos-Ibadan expressway and the Murtala Mohammed Airport, Lagos in protest against the strike.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Story

Lagos-Calabar Highway: Atiku faults FG’s demolition of properties

Published

on

..Accuses Tinubu of prioritising business over public good

…Says demolition of Landmark, others unfriendly to foreign Investors

…Says N1trn released without approval, accuses FG of financial recklessness

By Sodiq Adelakun

Former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has strongly condemned the demolition of properties in the Oniru corridor, including parts of Lagos State’s landmark, tourist, and recreational attractions, to make way for the Coastal Highway project.

Recall that Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate in the 2023 general election, Peter Obi, faulted the ongoing Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project, describing it as not necessary.

Obi had earlier condemned the commencement of the multi-trillion naira coastal highway project, when most internal roads in the country were impassable.

Meanwhile, Atiku criticised the lack of proper notification and the Tinubu-led government’s handling of the project, which he believes is a major hindrance to Nigeria’s ability to attract foreign direct investment.

In a statement issued on Sunday by his media adviser, Paul Ibe, Atiku alleged that President Bola Tinubu and Gilbert Chagoury, the owner of Hitech, the contractor handling the highway project, are the sole driving forces behind the rapid progress of the Coastal Highway project.

He claimed that the contract was awarded in violation of procurement regulations, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, Atiku highlighted a clear conflict of interest, pointing out that President Tinubu’s son and associates hold positions on the boards of companies owned by Gilbert Chagoury.

The former Vice President noted that “Tinubu’s son, Seyi, is a director on the board of CDK Integrated Industries, a subsidiary of the Chagoury Group, which manufactures ceramic tiles and sanitary towels.

Part of the statement reads, “The former Vice President restated that it has become obvious even to the undiscerning that the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is being done in a hurry purely because of the business relationship between Tinubu and Gilbert Chagoury, the owner of Hitech, the contractor that was awarded the contract for the highway project in contravention of the procurement laws. It is on record that this project is the most expensive single project ever embarked upon by the Nigerian government.

“The fact that it is happening at a time when Nigeria is facing its worst economic crisis ever is a red flag.

“To add insult to injury, this project that is being done for more than $13bn was awarded without competitive bidding. From all indications, the so-called Badagry-Sokoto highway would be awarded similarly at an enormous cost to taxpayers purely because Tinubu has put his interest ahead of the Nigerian people.”

Atiku said the demolition of tourist and recreational facilities and other properties within the Oniru corridor, including parts of Landmark, without ample notice, is one of the reasons foreign direct investments continue to elude the country.

He reiterated that “rather than improving the ease of doing business, the Tinubu administration had shown to the world that his personal business interest and that of his family would always be prioritised over and above national interest.”

Atiku noted that investors observe the treatment of local businesses and would avoid regions where their investments lack protection.

The former PDP presidential candidate stressed, “Tinubu has been globetrotting in search of foreign direct investments. He claims to have secured over $30 billion from various companies, but none has been forthcoming. Rather, all manufacturing firms have been posting heavy losses while some are exiting due to his poorly implemented exchange rate unification policy with even Aliko Dangote describing it as a huge mess at the recent annual general meeting of Dangote Sugar Refinery.

“The IMF in its latest report stated that Nigeria will by the end of the year become the 4th largest economy in Africa behind South Africa, Egypt and Algeria, a disgraceful development for a nation which was the largest in Africa by a mile when the PDP left the stage in 2015.

“Investors are seeing how local businesses are being treated and will not come to a place where their investments will not be protected. In saner climes, businesses such as Landmark would have been given at least two years’ notice for effective planning. But Tinubu’s eagerness to satisfy his business partners impaired his ability to coordinate the project properly.”

In the same vein, he criticised the Tinubu administration’s handling of the Lagos-Calabar coastal highway project, calling it a “rushed” and “reckless” endeavor.

Atiku noted that the environmental impact assessment report was not completed, and the right of way for the 700 km stretch of the project was not secured.

He also pointed out that the project was converted from a public-private partnership (PPP) to a government-funded project without proper approval, and that over N1 trillion was released without National Assembly approval, ignoring the initial N500 million approved by the legislature.

Continue Reading

Top Story

Corruption allegations: EFCC denies issuing list of ex-Govs under investigation

Published

on

By Adeyanju Esther

In response to a recent flurry of reports circulating in various media outlets, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has come forward to disassociate itself from a purported list of ex-governors allegedly under investigation for corruption.

The commission has denied “any involvement in the dissemination of such information and asserts that no discussions regarding the investigation of ex-governors have taken place with any media entity.”

The report, titled ‘EFCC Releases Full List of 58 Ex-Governors that Embezzled N2.187 Trillion,’ has been deemed by the EFCC as false and misleading.

The Commission has clarified that it neither issued nor endorsed the aforementioned list, emphasising that it is a fabrication with motives known only to its authors.

“The EFCC urges the public to disregard the false report and warns the media against perpetuating inaccurate information that could mislead the public.

“Furthermore, the EFCC advises media organizations to exercise diligence in fact-checking and verifying information related to ongoing investigations by consulting directly with the commission to prevent the spread of false and misleading reports,” the Commission said.

Continue Reading

Top Story

N5.9trn, $4.6bn loans: SERAP sues Sani, Wike

Published

on

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against Nigeria’s governors and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Mr Nyesom Wike “over their failure to account for N5.9 trillion and $4.6 billion loans obtained by their states and the FCT, and to publish copies of the loan agreements, including details and locations of projects executed with the loans.”

The suit followed the disclosure last month by Governor Uba Sani of Kaduna State that the immediate past administration of Nasir El-Rufai left $587m, N85bn debt and 115 contractual liabilities, making it impossible for the state to pay salaries.

In the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/592/2024 filed last Friday at the Federal High Court, Abuja, SERAP is asking the court to “direct and compel the governors and Mr Wike to account for N5.9trn and $4.6bn loans obtained by their states and the FCT and to publish copies of the loan agreements, location of projects executed with the loans.”

SERAP is also asking the court to “direct and compel the governors and Mr Wike to invite the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission [EFCC] and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission [ICPC] to investigate the spending of all the loans obtained to date by their states and the FCT.”

In the suit, SERAP is arguing that, “It is in the public interest to grant the reliefs sought. Nigerians have the right to see and scrutinise the loan agreements and know the details of how the domestic and external loans obtained by the governors and FCT minister are spent.”

According to SERAP, “Opacity in the spending of the loans obtained by the governors and Mr Wike would continue to have negative impacts on the fundamental interests of the citizens.”

SERAP is also arguing that, “Many states and the FCT are reportedly spending public funds which may include the loans obtained by them to fund unnecessary travels, buy exotic and bulletproof cars and generally fund the lavish lifestyles of politicians.”

SERAP is also arguing that, “Many states and the FCT are also allegedly mismanaging public funds which may include domestic and external loans obtained from bilateral and multilateral institutions and agencies.”

According to SERAP, “Many states and the FCT reportedly owe civil servants’ salaries and pensions. Several states are borrowing to pay salaries. Millions of Nigerians resident in the state and FCT continue to be denied access to basic public goods and services such as quality education and healthcare.”

According to SERAP, “Transparency in the spending of the loans obtained by the states and FCT is fundamental to increase accountability, prevent corruption, and build trust in democratic institutions with the ultimate aim of strengthening the rule of law.”

The suit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare, Kehinde Oyewumi and Ms Valentina Adegoke, read in part: “States and the FCT should be guided by transparency and accountability principles and proactively account for the loans obtained and publish copies of the loan agreements.

“Widely publishing copies of the loan agreements and spending details of the loans obtained would ensure that persons with public responsibilities are answerable to the people for the performance of their duties in the management of public funds.

“State governors and Mr Wike cannot hide under the excuse that the Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to their states and the FCT. The legal obligations to publish the information sought are also imposed by the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

“According to Nigeria’s Debt Management Office, the total public domestic debt portfolio for the country’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory is N5.9 trillion. The total public external debt portfolio is $4.6 billion.

“The domestic and external loans obtained by the states and the FCT are vulnerable to corruption and mismanagement. The states and FCT have a responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability in how any loans obtained by the states and FCT are spent, to reduce vulnerability to corruption and mismanagement.

“Directing and compelling the states and FCT to publish copies of the loan agreements would allow Nigerians to scrutinise them, and promote transparency and accountability on the spending of public funds including the loans obtained.

“Providing and widely publishing the details of the spending of the domestic and external loans obtained by the states and FCT would enable Nigerians to effectively and meaningfully engage in the management of the loans.

“The constitutional principle of democracy also provides a foundation for Nigerians’ right to know the details of loan agreements and how the loans obtained are spent. Citizens’ right to know promotes openness, transparency, and accountability that is in turn crucial for the country’s democratic order.

“The effective operation of representative democracy depends on the people being able to scrutinize, discuss and contribute to government decision making, including on the spending of loans obtained by the states and FCT.

“To do this, they need information to enable them to participate more effectively in the management of public funds by their state governments and the FCT.

“The public interest in obtaining information about expenditures relating to the loans obtained by the states and FCT outweighs any privacy or other interest.

“The oversight afforded by public access to such details would serve as an important check on the activities of the states and FCT and help to prevent abuses of the public trust.

“There is a significant risk of mismanagement or diversion of funds linked to loans obtained by state governments and the FCT. The accounts of Nigeria’s 36 states and the FCT are generally not open to public scrutiny.

“The Nigerian Constitution, human rights and anti corruption treaties to which Nigeria is a state party also impose obligations on the states and FCT to prevent mismanagement or diversion of public funds including the loans obtained.

“Many years of allegations of corruption and mismanagement of public funds including the loans obtained by the states and FCT have contributed to widespread poverty, underdevelopment and lack of access to public goods and services.”

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.

Continue Reading

Trending