The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Abuja judicial division, has overturned the suspension of some members of staff of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN).

The court also ordered the dissolution of the caretaker committee constituted by the Central Working Committee (CWC) of PENGASSAN after the expiration of the tenure of the Branch Executive Committee on the 27th of May 2025.

The court presided over by Justice O.Y. Anuwe gave the orders while ruling in the suit NICN/ABJ/307/2025 filed by 15 NMDPRA members who were suspended last year by PENGASSAN.

Daily Trust reports that the legal battle was the culmination of the crisis in the NMDPRA branch of PENGASSAN following the suspension of some members by the PENGASSAN leadership.

It would be recalled that some staff members had rejected the caretaker committee for the branch installed by the National Secretariat of PENGASSAN.

The decision, announced on June 27, 2025 was described as unconstitutional, undemocratic, and a breach of the union’s internal rules.

On August 18, 2025, the PENGASSAN suspended the members for 10 years over “allegations of misconduct, constitutional violations and actions prejudicial to the interest of the union.”

Dissatisfied with their suspension, 15 members approached the NICN, claiming their suspension and the constitution of the caretaker committee and failure to conduct the NMDPRA-Branch election is a violation and breach of the PENGASSAN constitution.

Defendants in the case were PENGASSAN, its National President, Comrade Festus Osifo; General Secretary, Comrade Lumumba Ighotemu Okugbawa; Comrade Tony Izogba; Comrade Gbolahan Akinyo; Comrade Okechuwku Nwanko, Comrade Abba Safana and Comrade Polycarp Ihejirika who are all members of the caretaker committee.

In the originating summons brought pursuant to section 254 © of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and order rule 3 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, the claimants raised 16 issues for determination and sought 18 reliefs.

They sought a declaration that by the provision of the PENGASSAN Constitution 2022; the affairs of a branch of the association cannot be administered with a caretaker committee for more than three months within which a branch election shall be conducted.

Other reliefs, among others are: “A DECLARATION that by the provision of the PENGASSAN Constitution 2022; the affairs of a Branch of the Association cannot be administered with a Caretaker Committee for more than three (3) months within which a branch election shall be conducted.

“A DECLARATION that the act of running any branch of the PENGASSAN with a Caretaker Committee for over a period of three (3) months is unconstitutional, illegal and unknown to the PENGASSAN Constitution.”

In the judgement delivered on Tuesday January 27, 2026, the court ordered the CWC of PENGASSAN (first defendant), to within 7 days of the judgement, commence the electoral process for the election of the BECOM of the NMDPRA branch in accordance with the electoral guidelines and requirements of the constitution of the 1st defendant.

Out of the 18 claims sought by the claimants, the court granted reliefs 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,11,12,13 and 14 in the terms as sought by the claimants while reliefs 6,10,15,16,17 and 18 did not succeed.

On the suspension of the claimants, the court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the suspension was ratified by the National Executive Council of PENGASSSAN, declaring their suspension as “null and void.”

It also said the composition of the Ethical, Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (EGDC) which recommended the suspension of the claimants was not properly done.

“From the facts contained in the counter affidavit of the defendants, the defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that the suspension of the claimants by the CWC, as a disciplinary action, was ratified by NEC before or after the suspension was effected.

“The argument of the learned counsel for the defendants is a further confirmation that the suspension of the claimants was not with NEC ratification,” the court declared.

“The fact that the EGDC has been found in this judgement to be unlawful and void implies that there was no competent EGDC composed as provided in Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s constitution which heard the case against the claimants before they were suspended.

“The claimants were therefore not given any fair hearing by a competent EGDC before they were suspended. The further implication is that the disciplinary procedure in the 1st defendant’s constitution was not followed before the claimants were suspended by the CWC. Therefore, the suspension of the claimants is unlawful, null and void.” (Daily Trust)

Update news