The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan has stood down the 2019 suspension of the National Union of Road Transport Workers in Oyo State, declaring such move of Governor Seyi Makinde as illegal.
Governor Makinde had, on May 31, 2019, proscribed the activities of the NURTW across the state, citing breaches of peace and directing the government’s immediate takeover of all motor parks.
Dissatisfied with the move, the union approached the National Industrial Court of Nigeria on July 19, 2021, seeking to nullify the proscription.
However, the lower court dismissed the suit on March 23, 2022, holding that it lacked merit.
The NURTW, through its counsel, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), appealed the decision on April 22, 2022, arguing that the Oyo State Government had no 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, including “whether the executive governor of Oyo State or his agents are vested with the power to proscribe or suspend the operation of NURTW, which is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act CAP T14 Law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
However, Attorney-General of Oyo State, Mr. Abiodun Aikomo, surmised that the suspension of NURTW was a result of a breakdown of law and order.
In its judgment, a three-man panel led by Justice Kenneth 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 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.
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.
