NUPENG’s misdirected ultimatum

He said that such alleged abuses formed the basis for the ultimatum to the government. According to him, if the government failed to accede to the demand by tomorrow when the ultimatum expires, he would mobilize members of the union for a nationwide strike. To lend weight to his position, he appealed to the Chief […]

He said that such alleged abuses formed the basis for the ultimatum to the government. According to him, if the government failed to accede to the demand by tomorrow when the ultimatum expires, he would mobilize members of the union for a nationwide strike. To lend weight to his position, he appealed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation to’ intervene’ in the matter.
It is a strange and reckless demand that the courts be intimidated or stampeded into bucking due process because of the say-so of petroleum workers’ leadership.
 To even use the strike option as leverage in furtherance of this intimidation is an egregious attempt to interfere in the judicial process. Strike may be a legitimate instrument for labour organisations to press home grievances for resolution. Given the extent of disruption of essential services which the country suffers, no strike should be taken lightly. Already, Achese’s statement precipitated fuel queues in some towns.
The basis of the NUPENG official’s remarks is the leadership composition in IPMAN after a recent election.
He appeared to want to portray the judiciary as taking sides on the issue, claiming among other things that “the idea of using the judiciary to buy judgment does not augur well for the democratic process that the nation has been enjoying for the past 15 years. It does not in any way protect the Constitution of our great country in the eyes of the world.”   He hinged his statement on a possible misreading of two separate judgments from two courts on the IPMAN issue; one in Port Harcourt and the other in Abuja, either with different prayers and associated rulings.  For instance, the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt did not grant one Mr Obasi Lawson, who Mr Achese seemed to support, the order he sought to occupy the office of the President of IPMAN, but granted a different relief as the President of the association’s Board of Trustees. In the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Abuja, on the other hand, the ruling was on the propriety of the elections that ushered in the current executive committee of IPMAN, whose election took place at the expiration of the tenure of the preceding leadership. The union officials may canvass whatever opinion they harbour; the Constitution guarantees that; but to seek to issue strike threats to stampede the courts into taking action that would only be favourable to them is taking that liberty too far. If he has misgivings, the courts have avenues to provide him a hearing. Making impugning comments on the courts at press conferences is certainly not one of them.
It cannot in any way also include blackmailing the government or its agencies into parochial considerations, including tampering with a matter that is before the courts.   The threat of strike is therefore a self-serving personal crusade aimed at using NUPENG as an institution to ground public services.  This should not be allowed to happen.
Members of NUPENG should prevail on their leaders not to subsume the national interests in their pursuit of a narrow, personal agenda.