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 and unconstitutional.
Governor Makinde had, on May 31, 2019, announced the proscription of the union’s activities across the state, citing a breakdown of law and order.
He also directed the state government’s immediate takeover of all motor parks, effectively halting the operations of the NURTW.
Dissatisfied, the union challenged the decision by filing a suit before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) on July 19, 2021, seeking to nullify the governor’s order. However, on March 23, 2022, the lower court dismissed the case for lack of merit.
The NURTW, through its counsel, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), subsequently filed an appeal on April 22, 2022, arguing that the Oyo State Government lacked the legal authority to suspend or proscribe a trade union duly registered under the Trade Union Act, CAP T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
Falana raised two key issues for determination before the appellate court: Whether the lower court’s failure to consider and pronounce on all issues legitimately raised by the appellant amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the governor of Oyo State or his agents had the legal power to suspend or proscribe the operations of the NURTW, a trade union under federal jurisdiction.
He further contended that the trial court erred in law by reaching its decision without addressing the substantive issues raised in the union’s case and objections to the government’s counter-affidavit.
While the Attorney-General of Oyo State, Mr. Abiodun Aikomo, argued that the NURTW’s suspension was necessary due to a breakdown of law and order, Falana countered that no credible evidence was provided to substantiate such claims.
He also maintained that trade unions fall under the exclusive legislative list of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and therefore, no state governor has the power to suspend or proscribe them.
In its lead judgment delivered by Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi, the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the NURTW, holding that the Oyo State Government failed to prove any breach of peace or public order that warranted the union’s suspension.
The court, therefore, set aside the earlier judgment of the National Industrial Court and declared Governor Makinde’s 2019 proscription of the NURTW in Oyo State unlawful and invalid.
“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,” Justice Amadi held.
“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 Biobele Abraham Georgewill, who concurred with the lead judgment, faulted the Oyo State Government’s handling of the matter.
He stressed that although the state has the constitutional duty to maintain law and order, such powers must be exercised strictly within the bounds 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 can 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.”
