The question of what has happened to the four government-owned refineries should go to the government, not NUPENG. If the funds for the refineries were mismanaged, then the complaint should go to the police or other anti-crime or anti-corruption agencies. It is rather wrong to report a criminal matter to NUPENG, whether for investigation or prosecution. On the issue of opposition to privatisation, it is the right of NUPENG to accept or reject it
ALIKO Dangote is a likeable man. He is into philanthropism, smiles and even dances in public. However, the issue is not his person but his businesses.
In the last few years, he has been engaged in endless fights over the operation of his refinery. But one of the most unnecessary is his fight with workers. Given the large-scale media war unleashed on his behalf by mainly uninformed commentators, my conclusion is that his conglomerate or associates must have spent huge sums of money on this avoidable fight.
Let us begin by disentangling the webs that have been woven around the conglomerate’s ongoing dispute with the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, NUPENG.
Dangote Plc was accused of rejecting the unionisation of its staff, especially the newly recruited tanker drivers. But the company claimed this was an accusation from the pit of hell. However, the truth was revealed in the peace agreement willingly signed by both parties on Tuesday, September 9, 2025. In it: “The management acknowledged the issue and stated that they are not averse to the unionisation of their employees by labour unions, in accordance with the provisions of the extant labour laws.”
A second untruth was that the workers rejected unionisation. How did the company know this? Did it carry out a referendum in which the staff so stated? If it did, then it should make the result public. In any case, what is the business of the employer in a purely workers’ affair? A third claim is that NUPENG is forcing the workers to join it, which is undemocratic. Obviously, such an argument stems from an ignorance of the Constitution and labour laws. The trade unions, by their composition, are inherently democratic and every worker under the Trade Union Act has the inalienable right, at any time, to opt out of the union.
A fourth claim is that the Dangote refinery drivers prefer a union different from NUPENG. This is an uninformed claim because we do not practise house unions in Nigeria, in which every company has its own union. What we practise is industrial unionism in which workers in an industry belong to the same union except they are categorised into junior and senior staff unions. In this case, the only legitimate union the tanker drivers can belong to is NUPENG.
A fifth claim is that the tanker drivers are not employees of Dangote, but of a different company. If this were true, why did Dangote go into negotiations with the union and sign the peace agreements? A follow-up argument is that NUPENG should not have carried out a picket at the refinery gate but gone to the office of the alleged employer of the tanker drivers. If, without conceding, this argument were tenable, it is nullified by Section 43 of the Trade Unions Act. It states that it shall be lawful for a trade union to picket premises “where a person resides or works or carries out business or happens to be…”
The propagandists of the company also argue that NUPENG is exploiting workers by imposing dues. This is a latently silly argument; payment of dues is basic to membership of organisations. In any case, it is the members who constitutionally decide what dues or levies to pay.
The bottom line in all these is that workers in Nigeria have the fundamental human right to unionise.
Since Dangote PLC had agreed to this fundamental right and also signed the agreement recognising such, it is childish for it to continue attacking the union based on faulty or outrightly false premises. For instance, after the peace agreement was signed, it issued a sulking statement: “We must begin to ask what has happened to all four FGN-owned refineries-Port Harcourt, Warri and Kaduna. When Port Harcourt and Kaduna refineries were privatised to a consortium Dangote was a member of in 2007, the same NUPENG were amongst the town criers against the privatisation. To date, about $18bn has been wasted to rehabilitate the refineries without any success. Who are the people who spent all these humongous amounts without any result? Can NUPENG assist Nigerians to unravel this?”
The question of what has happened to the four government-owned refineries should go to the government, not NUPENG. If the funds for the refineries were mismanaged, then the complaint should go to the police or other anti-crime or anti-corruption agencies. It is rather wrong to report a criminal matter to NUPENG, whether for investigation or prosecution. On the issue of opposition to privatisation, it is the right of NUPENG to accept or reject it.
But as a Labour leader in the 2007 matter Dangote referred to, I can reveal that NUPENG at the meetings of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, was not opposed to privatisation. However, as a disciplined affiliate, once the Congress collectively decided to oppose the privatisation, NUPENG fell in line. It is such exemplary conduct that we need in Nigeria, not a mercenary one.
In any case, let it be stated clearly: privatisation is not an inherent solution to running problematic public companies. After all, the mighty Chinese economy is publicly run. Also, as in the case of Nigeria, people run down public companies sometimes to get them sold as scrap.
But in attacking NUPENG over privatisation, Dangote PLC inadvertently opens itself to public scrutiny. It was Dangote that bought the publicly-owned Nigeria Textile Mills, Ikeja, Lagos. What has happened to it? It was Dangote that bought the publicly-owned steel rolling mills, like the one in Osogbo. Decades later, they are not functional. Is it that the Dangote group is too incompetent to run public companies it buys, or is it merely engaged in asset stripping?
The Dangote group’s record in privatisation is not so transparent. For instance, the Kogi State government in 2022 challenged its ownership of the state-owned Obajana Cement, which was renamed Dangote Cement. Rather than transparent resolution of the issue, the Presidency stepped in for a secret resolution. I think those rejoicing that Dangote promises to transport fuel free across the country should have a rethink. It is a purely business conglomerate whose primary purpose is profit and not philanthropy.
A company like Dangote that takes its rivals to court to stop them from importing PMS, which will give it the sole power to dictate prices of petroleum products, cannot be trusted with the future of 230 million Nigerians. Even the United States, which is the most capitalist country in the world, dating as far back as 1890, has put in place anti-trust laws.
The fact that the rich, like Dangote Plc, roar does not mean the unions or the rest of the Nigerian citizenry should scamper for safety.
- Lakemfa writes from Abuja