Dangote Refinery versus PENGASSAN — A wake-up call that labour law must be reviewed for national security

The recent sparring between the Dangote Group’s flagship refinery and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) was more than an industrial dispute. It exposed how gaps in labour regulation, corporate practice and national contingency planning can quickly become a threat to energy stability and economic security. What began as the dismissal of hundreds of unionised workers escalated into nationwide industrial action that interrupted crude and gas supplies, cut power generation and depressed output across the oil and gas value chain — with immediate effects on national energy security and revenue.

This episode should prompt an urgent, targeted review of Nigeria’s labour laws and related frameworks — not to curb legitimate workers’ rights, but to sharpen protections, clarify responsibilities for firms operating critical infrastructure, and make dispute-resolution faster and less destabilising.

In late September 2025 Dangote Petroleum moved to dismiss large numbers of employees amid claims of sabotage and a reorganisation; PENGASSAN viewed the dismissals as union-busting and called a nationwide withdrawal of services, including threats to cut gas supply to the refinery. The action caused major disruptions — a Reuters analysis put Nigeria’s daily oil output down roughly 16% at the height of the stoppage and reported widespread knock-on effects on gas, power and export loadings. The strike was suspended after government-brokered talks that included redeployment and assurances, but the truce is fragile and conditional.

That sequence — dismissal → rapid escalation → government mediation under threat of national energy paralysis — is precisely why legislators, regulators and labour stakeholders should not treat this as an isolated HR problem. It’s a systems failure with national consequences.

Two competing public goods: workers’ rights and national security

There are two legitimate public goods in tension here:

Workers’ rights and freedom of association. Nigerian law and international conventions protect the right to unionise and shield members from victimisation for doing so. PENGASSAN’s complaint centred on those protections.

Continuity of supply of services classified as critical to national life. A refinery with the capacity of Dangote’s is functionally part of national critical infrastructure; a stoppage there ripples through transport, power, and public finance.

Effective law must respect both. That balance is currently fragile because statutes and practice leave too much ambiguity about (a) how private critical facilities are regulated for labour relations, and (b) how strikes or managerial actions that threaten national supplies should be prevented, mediated and — where necessary — restrained without trampling rights.

Why existing rules underperformed

Several structural weaknesses surfaced during the dispute:

Slow dispute-resolution: existing mediation and adjudication timelines were too long to prevent rapid escalation when supply lines were cut. By the time the issue reached formal negotiation, the disruption had already spread.

Unclear status of private critical infrastructure: the law treats employers and unions under general labour rules, but does not specify extra obligations and safeguards for facilities whose failure would endanger national energy security.

Gaps around dismissals and redeployment: the situation shows confusion about what constitutes lawful reorganisation versus unlawful victimisation for unionising. Unclear standards invite both union reprisals and heavy-handed management responses.

Overreliance on emergency, ad-hoc government intervention: resolution in this case required urgent federal involvement; that’s workable occasionally, but not a sustainable system for recurring risk.

Principles for reform: what a review should aim to achieve

A national review of labour law and related regulatory practice should be structured around four principles:

Protect constitutional and international labour rights. Any reform must strengthen protection for freedom of association and guard against unlawful victimisation — not weaken them.

Define and regulate “critical private infrastructure.” Where private facilities carry national security consequences (energy, water, telecoms, transport), the law should impose additional duties: continuity planning, minimum staffing arrangements, and negotiated essential-services protocols.

Speedy, binding dispute-resolution for critical sectors. Create an expedited mediation/arbitration track with strict timelines, interim remedies and clear enforcement — faster than ordinary labour courts but still rights-protecting.

Transparency, oversight and deterrence. Sanctions (civil and administrative) for unlawful mass dismissals targeting union activity, and penalties for actions by unions that deliberately expose the public to severe shortages.

Concrete legal and policy recommendations

Below are targeted amendments and policy measures the National Assembly, Ministry of Labour, and regulators could consider:

Statutory “Critical Infrastructure” designation. An Act to define and list infrastructure types (and criteria) whose labour relations trigger special protocols. Companies on the list must submit contingency plans and agree collective-bargaining clauses for emergency continuity.

Fast-track conciliation mechanism. A special board for critical sectors with power to issue interim binding orders (e.g., temporary redeployment, reinstatement with monitoring), enforceable within days, not months.

Clear anti-victimisation rules with swift remedies. Explicit prohibition of dismissals for union activity, with statutory presumptions and mechanisms for provisional relief (injunctions, reinstatement or redeployment pending final determination).

Mandatory negotiation of essential-services agreements. Employers and unions in critical sectors must pre-negotiate “minimum service” agreements that apply during lawful industrial action, balancing worker leverage with public interest.

Penalties for reckless disruption. Where a party wilfully causes disproportionate national harm (e.g., cutting fuel/gas supplies without lawful basis), administrative or civil sanctions could deter escalation while preserving the right to strike.

Regular audits and oversight. The labour ministry, NNPC and industry regulators should carry out routine checks on contingency readiness and compliance for designated facilities.

The Dangote–PENGASSAN crisis of September–October 2025 should be read plainly: robust energy infrastructure owned by private entities can’t sit outside a public framework that anticipates labour conflict. Reviewing labour law is not about curbing unions or shoehorning the private sector into tighter government control. It is about creating a legal architecture that protects workers’ rights while preventing avoidable shocks to national life.

If lawmakers act quickly and carefully — preserving association rights while building expedited, rights-respecting dispute mechanisms and obligations for critical facilities — Nigeria will be better placed to prevent future standoffs from threatening fuel supply, power generation and the broader economy. The aim must be resilient, lawful continuity: a system that respects labour rights and secures the nation’s lifelines at the same time.