I have been curious about our labour laws for a while, seeing that ASUU have somehow felt justified in demanding payment of “their outstanding wages” for a period of 5 months during which they embarked on a nationwide strike. If that’s legal then the laws are definitely in need of some urgent amendments. So this evening, I got bored enough to try to decipher all that legal jargon in the Trade Unions Act (along with some very helpful reviews by Femi Aborisade) and I saw nothing that actually supports the strike (could be I actually need that law degree to be able to read between the lines). I had strained my eyes in advance, eager to uncover some loop hole that might have eluded the sharpest legal minds so I was a little disappointed when the facts I wanted were all clearly stated. In fact, I came across very interesting stuff and discovered that our labour laws are very much in keeping with ILO regulations.

Still, I find it hard to imagine that it could be this simple. You know they say: if it appears too good to be true it usually is. Would ASUU embark on a strike with no legal backing? Are there legislations outside of the Trade Unions Act, the Trade Unions Amendment Act, the Trade disputes (essential services) act, the Teaching, ETC(Essential services) act, LFN…..that empower or discourage strike action?

Anyway, here’s what I found………….

Section 30 sub-section (6) of the Trade Unions Act, as amended, stipulates that all strikes are illegal unless:–
• They occur in non-essential service sectors. That means persons or unions in essential service sectors are not permitted to strike, under the law, regardless of the circumstances. And the Trade disputes (Essential services) act, in section 9, categorizes the following under essential services: The armed forces and police, Any service established or maintained by the Government of the Federation or of a State, by a local government council, a town council or any municipal or statutory authority, or by private enterprise that relates to - electricity services, water supply services, fuel related services, telephone services, ports, transportation, fire-fighting services, hospital services and educational services at primary, secondary and tertiary institutions, CBN, Banking services established under the banking decree act.

This means that the ongoing ASUU strike is in violation of section 30 sub-section (6) of the Trade Unions Act.
The Teaching (Essential Services) Act (1993) decreed educational service to be an essential service where no staff, teaching or non-teaching, can embark on any form of strike [S.2(1)] and where a strike occurs and goes on for more than one week, the striking staff shall be deemed to have resigned their appointment. It further states that, a member of staff in the teaching service who embarks on strike for over one week shall be liable to vacate official accommodation that may have been provided, if any [2(3)]. And any official or member of an institution who embarks on strike is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a maximum of two years imprisonment [Section 2(4)]. An offence committed under [2(4)] is triable in the Federal High Court.


• The strike is about a dispute of rights as opposed to a dispute of interests. This means that provided you are part of the non-essential service sector, you are permitted to strike only over things that you are actually entitled to as stated in your contract or by collective agreement.
So, if ASUU weren’t a part of the essential service sector, under the Teaching, ETC (Essential Services) ACT of 1993, the fact that the government had negotiated and agreed to their demands in 2009 would make the dispute one of rights because collective agreement means ASUU would legally have entitlements. But they ARE a part of essential services.

• Before embarking on the strike, arbitration provisions as described in the Trade Disputes Act Cap. 432, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, have been complied with.

• In the case of an employee or a trade union, a ballot has been conducted in accordance with the rules and constitution of the trade union at which a simple majority of all registered members voted to go on strike.
Again in ASUU’s case, if they weren’t a part of essential services, the moment they conducted the voting exercise and 60% voted in favour of calling off the strike, they would have lost legitimacy.


This may not concern us now but under ILO regulations, a non-essential service might become essential if the strike extends beyond a certain point and subsequently endangers life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In such cases a minimum operational service could be required. And even though educational services are not listed as essential services under ILO regulations, they are recommended for minimum operational service once a strike in that sector becomes critical.

So does anyone know of anything contrary to this, that justifies the ASUU strike? Lawyers in the house or otherwise knowledgeable people! Please share.

Was thinking the write up would be about ASUU's own selfish interest more or less.....but your findings are really enlightening.

politics have blind folded their eyes that even the labour union dnt have time to check the content of their constitution.. we know this striking ASUU has political backing.