Nigeria’s National Industrial Court in Abuja has restrained the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) from embarking on its planned industrial action against Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals.

The Court, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Danjuma Subilim, in a ruling barred the defendants from halting crude oil and gas supply to the Dangote Refinery.

The applicant, Dangote Refinery, through its counsel George Ibrahim, listed as defendants the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA), and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC). The Court granted the applicant an interim order against the defendants.

In his motion, Ibrahim sought an interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant (NNPCL)—its members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, or assigns—from halting the supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant.

He further prayed the Court to restrain the defendants from embarking on any industrial action against the Claimant with the intention of crippling operations, blocking access roads, obstructing vehicular movement, or otherwise disrupting operations at the Claimant’s facility or the licensees of the 2nd to 4th Defendants, as contained in directives issued by the 1st Defendant on September 26, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Ibrahim also sought “an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd–4th Defendants, their employees, members, agents, servants, privies, representatives, licensees, or assigns from giving effect to the directives of the 1st Defendant to halt the supply of crude oil and gas to the Claimant; or joining, continuing, embarking on, or in any manner participating in the planned industrial action of the 1st Defendant and its affiliates or cronies, or any other strike whatsoever against the Claimant/Applicant, with a view to frustrating its business and operations, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”

He argued that the Applicant is a duly licensed petroleum production and distribution company engaged in refining and producing petroleum and petrochemical products for public consumption in Nigeria. He stressed that the company provides essential services critical to the Nigerian economy and the wellbeing of the public.

Ibrahim further contended that recent incidents of sabotage by some employees at the Claimant’s plant had raised grave health and safety concerns, necessitating a re-organisation exercise that led to the disengagement of some staff. This decision, he noted, was communicated to all employees through a memo dated September 25, 2025.

According to him, in the early hours of September 26, 2025, the Claimant became aware of reports circulating online alleging that Nigerian workers were dismissed simply for joining the 1st Defendant’s union.

The management of the Claimant promptly issued a press statement refuting the allegation, clarifying that the company was not opposed to unionisation, which it recognises as a constitutional right. He emphasised that the refinery has over 3,000 Nigerians in its workforce, and that only a negligible number of staff were affected by the reorganisation exercise, which was necessitated by acts of sabotage and safety concerns.

Counsel further told the Court that, by a letter dated September 26, 2025, the 1st Defendant, through its General Secretary, Comrade Lamumba Ighotemu Okugbawa, wrote to the Honourable Minister of Petroleum and Gas threatening that unless the affected staff—allegedly over 800—were reinstated, the union would take steps to cripple the Claimant’s operations.

“The 1st Defendant issued a press statement on September 26, 2025, erroneously describing the disengagement exercise as anti-labour practices and alleging that the workers were victimised for joining the union, which is patently incorrect,” Ibrahim submitted.

He added that, notwithstanding the Claimant’s clarifications, the 1st Defendant became further incensed and directed its executives and members in the licensees of the 2nd–4th Defendants, who supply crude oil and gas to the Claimant, to halt such supply as a means of paralysing its operations.

“The Claimant’s plant was constructed at a cost exceeding 20 billion US dollars by its promoters to address Nigeria’s decades-long energy challenges. The refinery has been making substantial contributions to the economy and meeting consumer demand. If the 1st Defendant’s threat is carried out, Nigeria would be plunged back into the dark days of energy shortages, with devastating consequences for consumers and the economy,” he argued.

The Court held that the order shall subsist for seven days only.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to October 13 for the hearing of the motion on notice.