*Why NLC, TUC ignored injunction against strike

Assuming the federal government charily read all the premonitory signs that the expired year held in its crystal ball, it may have probably opted for a ‘crisis-free subsidy removal’ in year 2012!

Likewise, had the National Industrial Court in Abuja nursed the premonition that the Nigerian Labour Congress, NLC, and the Trade Union Congress, TUC, could successfully galvanise Nigerians to stand against the January 1 removal of oil subsidy by the federal government, maybe it would not have touched the rushed ex-parte motion that was tendered before it by the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, Adoke, on January 6, even with a ten-metre pole.

It is trite that a valid court order, no matter how useless it may seem, goes with a measurable sanction whenever it is flouted. However, when the validity of a court order is queried, it often culminates in the judiciary losing its potency, thus, boxing the court that made such order into a situation that portrays it as having embarked on a fools errand ab-initio.

Martin Luther King had in one of his great speeches observed that “a man can’t ride your back unless it’s bent!” just as he equally noted that “the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflicts.”

Could the above aphorisms probably explain the positions both the labour unions and the AGF took in respect of the restraining order that was made by a 3-man panel of the NIC barring any group in the country from embarking on any form of strike in respect of the fuel subsidy removal saga?

Does any court have the right to ban peaceful demonstrations in a democratic dispensation?

Is strike illegal? These are some of the questions that have continued to plague the minds of pundits.

Following its failure to persuade the labour unions to shelve their planned industrial action against the oil subsidy removal, the AGF went before the NIC and secured an injunction which he said was “in the interest of peace, national security and stability of the country.”

On the basis of his motion ex-parte dated January 6, the panel of Justices headed by the NIC chairman himself, Justice B. A. Adejumo, granted three separate injunctions that have since turned to a judicial child’s play.

The NIC had in its ruling, relied on the provisions of section 7(1b) and 19(a) of the NIC Act and section 254 (c) of the 1999 constitution to insist that it had the requisite jurisdiction to bar the labour unions from going to strike.

Specifically, it made an “order restraining the defendants (NLC and TUC) from embarking or compelling other persons to embark on a strike action or general strikes, mass rallies and street protests across Nigeria pending the determination of the motion on notice.

“An order restraining the defendants from embarking and/ or inciting the general public to embarking on and/ or inciting the Nigerian citizenry and the genera public to embark on genera strikes, street protests, mass rallies and any other action that would be inimical to the economic affairs of the federal republic of Nigeria pending the determination of the motion on notice.”

As well as, an order granting the federal government leave to serve the originating processes to the two defendants vide substituted means to-wit, by publication in three choice national dailies.

However, none of these orders was complied with both on the part of the government and the defendants thereby making a valid interim injunction of a court appear to have died a natural death.

It was to even become more baffling when the same subsequently court announced through a press conference, that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any issue bothering on the fuel subsidy removal impasse, saying it would only adjudicate on the area that bothered on strike.

Could this have been a classical case of “the egg and the hen which came first?”

Addressing the press on Wednesday, the Chief Registrar of the court, Mrs Rekiya Bosade Haastrup, while denouncing what she described as “insinuation from some quarters that a ‘black market injunction’ was obtained by the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation from the NIC”, maintained that the interim injunction was issued with a view to avoiding “break down of law and order and to ensure that there is industrial peace and harmony in the country.”

She said, “The court gave an order in the open court in the full glare of members of the public and the press in attendance. Order of the court was published in a number of national newspapers as substituted service.

“Part of the prayer of the appellant bothers on issues of oil subsidy removal. But the court made it clear in open court that it lacks jurisdiction on the matter.

“Section 7 (1b) of the National Industrial Court Act (NICA) 2006 and section 254 (c ) sub-section (1c) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, confers jurisdiction on the NICN on matter concerning strikes- matters before the court between the AGF and the NLC and TUC.

“The court declined jurisdiction on two of the prayers of the appellant which were clearly outside the jurisdiction of the court.

“The order of the court was not obtained by fraud as being peddled in some quarters. The order as given by a competent court of the land is still subsisting and ought to be respected by all parties.

“The insinuation from some quarters that a ‘black market injunction’ was obtained by the AGF from the NIC is no doubt misleading, baseless and has no iota of truth in such whatsoever.

“All rules of court were carefully observed and followed to the letter for avoidance of doubt and preserving the credibility of the court in such sensitive issue.

“The essence of the order of the court is to preserve the ‘Res’ to avoid break down of law and order and to insure that there is industrial peace and harmony in the country.

“The court has only given an order which is binding on the parties that have appeared issues before the court, that is, AGF, NLC and TUC.”

How binding was that order, remains a question that is still begging for an answer!

Meantime, following the refusal of any of the two defendants to appear in court on Thursday as they were initially ordered to, the court had no option than to shift hearing on the suit till tomorrow.

It is instructive however to note that the reason the case didn’t proceed as scheduled was not in any way because the NLC and the TUC held the order of the court in contempt but because the federal government failed to effectively serve them with the requisite court processes as was directed by the panel.

As the legal dilly-dally continue tomorrow, one may be tempted to ask himself, “Who is really running the fools errand in this matter?”