Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State capital, has overturned the suspension of National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) in the state.
The appellate court quashed the order issued by Governor Seyi Makinde in 2019 and declared it as unlawful.
Governor Makinde had, on May 31, 2019, proscribed the activities of NURTW in the state, citing breach of peace.
The governor had also announced the immediate takeover of motor parks by the state government.
Challenging the order, the union, through its counsel, Femi Falana (SAN), 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, saying it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, NURTW filed an appeal on April 22, 2022, in which it argued 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, Falana, raised two issues for determination by the appellate court.
Falana asked the court to determine: “Whether the lower court’s failure/ neglect to consider, resolve and pronounce on all issues legitimately raised and canvassed by the appellant’s counsel not a miscarriage of justice on the union.”
He also asked the appellate court to determine: “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 was trite that a court rendered a decision on every issue properly raised before it.
The appellant argued that the trial court erred in law to reach its decision without considering the merit of the case in line with objection raised by the union against counter affidavit of the state government.
While the Attorney-General of Oyo State, Mr. Abiodun Aikomo, argued that the suspension of NURTW was as a result of a breakdown of law and order, the union’s counsel countered by submitting that there was no evidence of any breakdown of law and order.
Falana also questioned the legal power of Governor Makinde to suspend NURTW, as all trade unions were on the exclusive legislative list of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
The three-man panel in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Kenneth Amadi ruled that 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 said while the state had 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 act 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 he categorised as violent.”
He noted that “if the appellant’s activities were violent, that it is an illegal act, then such violent activities can be checked by the state government, so that the law and order will 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.”
