The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State has overturned the suspension of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) in Oyo State, declaring the action taken by Governor Seyi Makinde in 2019 as unlawful.
Governor Makinde had, on May 31, 2019, proscribed the activities of the NURTW in the state, citing a breach of peace and announcing the immediate takeover of all motor parks by the state government.
Challenging the move, the union filed a suit at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) on July 19, 2021, seeking to nullify the governor’s order. However, the lower court dismissed the suit on March 23, 2022, stating it lacked merit.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the NURTW filed an appeal on April 22, 2022, arguing that the state government lacked the legal authority to suspend the operations of a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act CAP T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
The union’s counsel, Mr. Femi Falana SAN raised two issues for determination which are: Whether the lower court’s failure/neglect to consider, resolve and pronounce on all issues legitimately raised and canvassed by the appellant’s counsel not occasion a miscarriage of justice on the union; whether the executive governor of Oyo State or his agents are vested with the power to proscribe or suspend the operation of NURTW in the state which is a trade union registered under Trade Union Act CAP T14 Law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria .
The union’s counsel argued that it is trite that a court renders a decision on every issue properly raised before it. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in law to reach its decision without considering the merit of the case in line with with objection raised by the union against counter affidavit of the state government.
While the Attorney-General of Oyo State, Mr. Abiodun Aikomo argued that the suspension of NURTW was as a result of a breakdown of law and order, the union’s counsel countered by submitting that there was no evidence of any break down of law and order.
Mr. Falana also questioned the legal power of Governor Makinde to suspend the NURTW as all trade unions are in the exclusive legislative list of the Constitution of the Federal Repiblic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
The three man panel in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi, ruled that the Oyo State Government failed to provide evidence of any breach of peace or public order that would justify the suspension of the union’s activities.
“Nowhere in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents at the lower court did they aver that the conduct of the appellant warranted a suspension on the grounds of breach of peace, law, and order.
“I therefore hold that the respondents failed to justify the suspension of the activities of the appellant based on the ground of breach of peace, law and order in Oyo State caused by the union. I allow this appeal, set aside the suspension on the operations of NURTW in Oyo State. I also set aside the judgment of the lower court”, Justice Amadi held.
Justice Biobele Abraham Georgewill, concurring with the lead judgment, criticized the state government’s handling of the matter.
He emphasized that while the state has the authority to maintain law and order, it must do so within the confines of the law.
In his ruling, he held: ” In the leading judgment, it has been demonstrated that the respondents did not prove the existence of any acts of violence against the appellant by merely mouthing violence in its counter affidavit without setting forth the acts of the appellant and concrete evidence to show the acts and conduct that be categorised as violent. Now, if the appellant’s activities were violent, that it is illegal act, then such violent activities can be checked by the state government, so that the law and order would be restored and maintained by the relevant security agencies, including the police, but it cannot be resolved by resort to another form of illegality by the state government going outside the lawful channel to use its whims and caprices by suspending the activities of the appellant, since the state government does not have any such powers outside of laws of the land.”
