Why Court Ordered ASUU to Call Off Strike Action
ABUJA–The National Industrial Court, NIC, sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, ordered the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, to call off its over seven-month old strike action.
The court made the order in a ruling that was delivered by Justice Polycarp Hamman.
The ruling followed an application the Federal Government filed for an interlocutory order to compel ASUU, which embarked on strike action since February 14, to return to the classroom.
FG’s lawyer, Mr. James Igwe, had prayed the court to order the striking varsity lecturers to in the interim, return to work, pending the determination of the substantive suit before the court.
He maintained that the matter was not only urgent, but of a great national interest, as millions of students have been at home for over seven months.
“Section 47 of the Trade Dispute Act, TDA, gives your lordship the power to direct that no worker should continue to embark on strike pending when the applications are heard and determined”, Igwe argued.
He contended that under section 18(1)E of the TDA, employees could not continue a strike action when a matter is already referred to the industrial court for adjudication.
Igwe said there was a need for the matter to be expeditiously determined to enable university students to return to school, adding that failure to call off the strike would cause irreparable damage not only to the students but also to the nation.
According to him, since the dispute between the FG and lectures is already before the court for adjudication, it would be proper and in the interest of justice for the strike to be suspended.
In his ruling, Justice Hamman held that the application was meritorious and deserved to be granted by the court.
While dismissing objections ASUU raised through its lawyer, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, the court held that the strike action was detrimental to public university students who cannot afford to attend private tertiary institutions.
“The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant.
“I hold that this application is meritorious and this application is granted”, Justice Hamman ruled.
The court, thereafter, issued an order, restraining ASUU, “whether by themselves, members, agents, privies or howsoever called, from taking further steps and doing any act in continuance of the strike action, pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed.”
It however, declined to award cost against ASUU as FG had demanded.
It will be recalled that ASUU had embarked on an initial four-week strike to press home its demands, which included improved funding for universities, as well as a review of salaries for lecturers.
It subsequently extended the strike action indefinitely on August 29, following the breakdown of negotiations between the union and the government.
While ASUU accused FG of not being sincere in its negotiation, the government, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, approached the court to compel the striking lecturers to return to the classroom.
Specifically, it urged the court to “interpret in its entirety the provisions of Section 18 LFN 2004, especially as it applies to the cessation of strike once a trade dispute is apprehended by the Minister of Labour and Employment and conciliation is ongoing”.
As well as requested for, “an order of the Court for ASUU members to resume work in their various universities while the issues in dispute are being addressed by the NICN in consonance with the provisions of Section 18 (I) (b) of the TDA Cap T8. LFN 2004”.
ASUU had, in a counter-affidavit it filed before the court, opposed the suit on the premise that the Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr. Chris Ngige, lacked the power to order the court in the referral to direct it to call off the strike action.
ASUU’s lawyer, Falana, SAN, argued that such a referral amounted to a directive from the Minister to the court.
He maintained that neither a Minister nor the President could wield such powers as to control a court of competent jurisdiction.
More so, Falana, SAN, argued that the FG failed to follow the due process as stipulated in Part 1 of TDA 2004.
According to him, the law provided that such a matter must first pass through the Industrial Arbitration Panel, IAP, before landing at the NIC.
Falana argued that ASUU would not have embarked on strike had the government kept to various agreements and Memorandum of Understanding, MoU, it signed with the union in the past.
Justice Hamman dismissed the objections and ordered the striking varsity lecturers to, in line with provisions of the TDA, return to the classroom, pending the final determination of the suit before the court.
Related Article: FG not ready to fund varsities –ASUU
FAQs: Why Court Ordered ASUU to Call Off Strike Action
Why did the court order ASUU to call off the strike?
The National Industrial Court ordered the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to suspend its strike and return to work to prevent further disruption of academic activities in public universities. The court considered the impact of the prolonged strike on students, the education system, and the need to maintain industrial harmony while negotiations continued.
What was the basis of the court’s decision?
The court’s decision was based on the legal proceedings brought before it by the Federal Government, which argued that the continued strike was affecting students and the smooth running of universities. The court relied on relevant labour laws and its authority to intervene in industrial disputes involving essential public services.
Did the court ruling end the ASUU strike permanently?
No. The court order only directed ASUU to suspend the strike and resume academic activities. It did not automatically resolve all the issues between ASUU and the Federal Government. Negotiations and discussions on the union’s demands were expected to continue.
What were the major issues behind the ASUU strike?
The strike was caused by unresolved disagreements between ASUU and the Federal Government, including concerns about university funding, implementation of previous agreements, lecturers’ welfare, payment of allowances, revitalisation of public universities, and the overall condition of tertiary education in Nigeria.
What did the court order mean for students?
The ruling was expected to pave the way for the resumption of academic activities, including lectures, examinations, and completion of delayed academic sessions. However, the actual return to normal activities depended on ASUU’s response, further negotiations, and compliance with the court directive.
