Appeal Court Restores Drivers’ Union Operation In Oyo

The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, Oyo State, has restored the operation of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) in Oyo State, as the court declared the action taken by Governor Seyi Makinde in 2019, proscribing the union, as unlawful.

On May 31, 2019, Makinde proscribed the NURTW’s activities in the state, citing a breach of peace and announcing the state government’s immediate takeover of all motor parks.

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 in all matters 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 raised adequately before it. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in law in reaching its decision without considering the case’s merit, in line with an objection raised by the union against the state government’s counter-affidavit.

While the Attorney-General of Oyo State, Mr Abiodun Aikomo, argued that NURTW’s suspension resulted from a breakdown of law and order, the union’s counsel countered by submitting that there was no evidence of such a breakdown.

Mr Falana also questioned Governor Makinde’s legal power to suspend the NURTW, as all trade unions are included in the exclusive legislative list of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

In its lead judgment, delivered by Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi, the three-man panel 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 appellant’s conduct warranted a suspension on the grounds of breach of peace, law, and order.

“I, therefore, hold that the respondents failed to justify suspending the appellant’s activities based on the breach of peace, law and order in Oyo State caused by the union. I allow this appeal and set aside the suspension of NURTW operations in Oyo State. I also set aside the lower court’s judgment”, Justice Amadi held.

Justice Biobele Abraham Georgewill, concurring with the lead judgment, criticised the state government’s handling of the matter.

He emphasised 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 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.”