Oil, Power, and Protest – Can Nigeria Balance Labour Rights with Economic Stability?

The petroleum sector has always been Nigeria’s economic heartbeat. With more than 90 percent of export earnings and over half of government revenues tied to oil and gas, disruptions in this industry reverberate across every sector of the economy. At the center of this vital industry are three powerful labour unions, the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), and the Petroleum Tanker Drivers (PTD), a NUPENG affiliate. Their reach extends across production, distribution, and logistics, making them indispensable to the smooth running of Nigeria’s energy value chain.

Historically, these unions were born out of necessity. The oil boom of the 1970s exposed deep inequalities between expatriates and Nigerian workers, while poor wages and unsafe conditions created fertile ground for activism. PENGASSAN, founded in 1973, and NUPENG, in 1977, became formidable forces that later played defining roles in Nigeria’s democratic struggle. Their resistance against military rule, especially during the Abacha years, cemented them as symbols of defiance against authoritarianism.

Yet, the democratic era has complicated their legacy. Since 1999, the unions have shifted their focus primarily toward labour rights, wage negotiations, and opposition to casualisation. While these battles are legitimate, their methods particularly frequent strikes have often paralyzed the economy. Strikes may highlight genuine grievances, but ordinary Nigerians frequently suffer the most through fuel scarcity, rising transport costs, and inflationary spikes that worsen already fragile living conditions.

The ongoing showdown between organised labour and Dangote Group illustrates this tension. At the heart of the conflict is the Dangote Refinery, a $20 billion facility hailed as Africa’s largest industrial project and a potential game-changer for Nigeria’s energy security. Reports of over 800 dismissed workers who attempted to unionize triggered outrage from NUPENG, PENGASSAN, and the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). The unions accuse Dangote of union-busting and treating workers as disposable assets. The NLC, under Joe Ajaero, has now placed affiliates on full alert for industrial action, accusing the conglomerate of operating as a state within a state.

Dangote Group, however, frames its resistance differently. Company officials argue that premature unionization could destabilize operations at a time when the refinery is still scaling up, citing fears of disruption and inefficiencies. For critics, this is a classic clash between corporate profit motives and worker rights. For sympathizers, it is a reminder that Nigeria’s most ambitious industrial project risks being strangled by the same adversarial labour relations that crippled state-owned refineries for decades.

This confrontation raises broader structural questions. Why has Nigeria failed to create a transparent and collaborative framework between labour, government, and industry? In Norway, labour unions, the state, and corporations operate within tripartite agreements that prioritize both worker welfare and national stability. In contrast, Nigerian unions often act as veto players, using strikes as bargaining chips while private corporations respond with union-busting tactics. The absence of constructive dialogue has produced a cycle of confrontation rather than cooperation.

Compounding the controversy are longstanding allegations of ambiguity in union finances. NUPENG and PTD, for instance, face accusations of imposing informal levies on petroleum tanker drivers and LPG trucks, raking in billions of naira annually. Critics liken these levies to extortion that inflates consumer prices while enriching a few union leaders. Such practices undermine their moral authority and expose them to charges of being cartels rather than genuine workers’ representatives.

Internal divisions have not helped their cause. PTD has suffered violent factional clashes that left drivers dead, while PENGASSAN has struggled with leadership crises and corruption allegations. These internal fractures erode democratic accountability within unions and diminish their ability to mobilize workers effectively. As much as they accuse corporations of high-handedness, their own internal governance has sometimes mirrored the very injustices they protest.

Still, it would be misleading to reduce these unions to villains alone. Their role in securing health and safety standards, resisting casualisation, and influencing the Nigerian Content Development Act cannot be erased. NUPENG’s recent health insurance scheme for tanker drivers highlights their enduring relevance as protectors of marginalized workers who would otherwise be left without safety nets. For many oil workers, the unions remain the last line of defense against exploitative practices.

The stakes are particularly high in the Dangote case. If unions succeed in forcing the refinery to accept full unionization, they would secure a symbolic victory for worker rights in Nigeria’s private sector. If Dangote prevails, however, it may embolden other corporations to resist union influence, fundamentally reshaping industrial relations in Nigeria. Either outcome will have lasting implications for the balance of power between capital and labour.

Beyond the immediate battle, the larger question is one of national interest. Nigeria needs functioning refineries to reduce dependence on imports, stabilize fuel prices, and conserve foreign exchange. But it also needs strong unions to prevent corporate excesses, protect jobs, and ensure that workers benefit from industrial growth. Striking this balance requires reform, transparency, and mutual trust, qualities currently in short supply.

Reform is possible. Digitizing union levies, auditing their finances, and embedding collective bargaining frameworks into law could restore accountability. Similarly, corporations like Dangote must recognize that unionization is not an obstacle but a pathway to sustainable industrial peace. Government, as a neutral arbiter, must resist the temptation of regulatory capture and enforce labour laws impartially.

Nigeria’s oil unions stand at a crossroads. They can either reform, align their strategies with national development goals, and reclaim the moral authority they once held, or risk being seen as disruptive cartels that serve narrow interests. Likewise, corporations like Dangote can either embrace inclusive industrial relations or reinforce the image of predatory capitalism.

At their best, NUPENG, PENGASSAN, and PTD symbolize the resilience of Nigerian workers and the fight for dignity in a system that often disregards them. At their worst, they hold the economy hostage, erode investor confidence, and alienate the very public they claim to defend. The Dangote standoff may well be the defining moment in which their future role is shaped.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the end, the contest between oil unions and Nigeria’s largest private conglomerate is not just about wages or union cards. It is about the kind of industrial relations model Nigeria wants to embrace in the 21st century, one defined by confrontation and distrust, or one anchored in transparency, collaboration, and shared prosperity.

©️ Adebamiwa Olugbenga Michael