By Eric Ikhilae,The Nation

Copyright thenationonlineng

A National Industrial Court in Abuja has restrained Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) and others from embarking on its planned industrial action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE, including cutting crude and gas supply to the Dangote Refinery.

Justice Emmanuel Subilim issued the order on Monday while ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by Dangote Refinery, which was argued by its lawyer, George Ibrahim (SAN).

Also to be affected are the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Ltd, (NNPCL), the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA)

and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), listed a respondents to the motion.

Dangote Refinery stated, in a supporting affidavit, that in recent times, there have been incidents of sabotage by some of its employees in its plant, raising issues of grave health concern and safety of human lives.

It added that its management came to an irresistible conclusion that there should be re-organisation in the plant which led to relieving of some of its staff of their employment and same was communicated to all staff by a memo or circular dated 25th September, 2025.

The company stated that in the early hours of September 26 it received online report that its Nigerian workers were laid off because they joined PENGASSAN.

it said it refuted the false report via a press statement, following which it explained in clear terms that it was not averse to its employees unionizing as that is their constitutional right.

The company said it has over 3,000 Nigerians in its workforce and that only a few number of staff were affected by the reorganisation of the plant as a result of sabotage and safety concerns.

Read Also: JUST IN: PENGASSAN closes NUPRC, NMDPRA, NNPCL

It added that by a letter dated September 26 and allegedly circulated online by PENGASSAN through its General Secretary, Comrade Lamumba Ighotemu Okugbawa, the union wrote Minister of Petroleum (Gas) and warned that its members were going to take action that would force the claimant (Dangote Refinery) to its knees if the claimant fails to recall the affected staff which was described in the said letter as over 800.

It added: “The first 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.

“The first 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 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 first efendant 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 first 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 said.

Ruling after listening to Ibrahim, Justice Subilim held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the claimant as the continuation of the strike would irreparably damage its business and cripple the provision of essential services to the Nigerian public.

The judge was of the view that it was in the interest of justice for the court to restrain the respondents to preserve the industrial peace and further aid the continuous provision of essential services to the Nigerian public pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Justice Subilim while granting the restraining order, directed that copies of the said order be promptly served on the respondents, along with motion on notice.

The judge held that the restraining order shall last for seven days only.

He subsequently adjourned till October 13 for the hearing of the motion on notice.