When the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) announced its nationwide industrial action in late September, few expected the tremors from the strike to reach deep into the structure of the union itself. But weeks later, what began as a demonstration of workers’ solidarity has turned into a dramatic internal crisis — one that now threatens to divide one of Nigeria’s most powerful labor unions.
At the center of the turmoil lies a controversial decision by PENGASSAN’s national leadership to dissolve the branch executive councils of the Nigeria Gas Infrastructure Company Limited (NGIC) and the NNPC Gas Marketing Limited (NGML). The reason, according to a confidential report obtained by TheCable and verified by this newspaper, was the alleged “failure” of the executives to completely shut down gas supply to the Dangote Refinery during the strike.
This extraordinary move has ignited heated debates within the union and drawn attention to the intersection of labor politics, corporate power, and the country’s fragile energy security.
The Spark That Lit the Fire
On September 28, PENGASSAN began a nationwide strike that paralyzed key operations in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry. The strike, declared in protest over alleged government insensitivity to workers’ welfare and the mismanagement of gas sector operations, came with a firm directive: all PENGASSAN-affiliated branches were to enforce a reduction — and where possible, a total shutdown — of gas supply to the Dangote Refinery, the massive private-sector complex in Lagos that has dominated Nigeria’s energy discourse since it began limited operations.
The national leadership’s stance was clear — the refinery, though privately owned, symbolized what the union considered an imbalance of power and unfair labor conditions across the energy supply chain. By cutting off gas supply, PENGASSAN sought to flex its industrial muscle and remind the government that the union’s cooperation was indispensable to Nigeria’s energy stability.
But things did not go according to plan.
The Partial Shutdown That Caused a Storm
In the days that followed, the NGIC and NGML branches of PENGASSAN attempted to execute the shutdown directive. According to internal reports from their congress members, the branch executives made moves to close key valves supplying gas from the OB3 pipeline through Oben, one of the major gas transportation corridors feeding industrial clients — including Dangote Refinery.
They did manage to shut some valves, but their plan to fully halt the supply hit a wall. Technical complications, the continued gas injection from upstream producers, and the presence of security forces around strategic facilities made it impossible to achieve a total shutdown.
Still, early reports filtered to PENGASSAN’s national headquarters suggesting that the refinery’s gas inflow had been halted. Those reports, the NGIC/NGML congress later alleged, were “premature and exaggerated.”
In their appeal to the national leadership, they wrote:
“It is important to state that at no point did the branch executives claim to have achieved a 100% shutdown of gas supply to Dangote Refinery. They only said they had closed some valves and expected pressure to drop after a few hours, which did not happen as expected.”
In other words, the local teams had tried — but failed — to achieve complete compliance with the national strike order.
Accusations and Dissolution
The national body of PENGASSAN, furious over what it described as “sabotage” and “non-compliance,” took a drastic step: it dissolved the branch executive councils of both NGIC and NGML.
In labor unions, dissolution of a branch executive council is an extreme measure — often reserved for proven cases of corruption, insubordination, or betrayal of union principles. To deploy it during an ongoing strike signaled how seriously the national leadership viewed the issue.
In its internal communication, PENGASSAN alleged that the executives of NGIC and NGML had “failed to carry out directives” and might have been compromised by management interests. Some reports even hinted that branch officers had accepted monetary inducements from NGIC/NGML management to prevent the complete shutdown of gas to the refinery.
But the affected members were quick to reject these accusations, describing them as baseless and deeply damaging to their integrity.
In a passionate rebuttal, they appealed to the national leadership to drop what they called “unsubstantiated allegations of collusion and bribery.”
“These allegations are serious,” they wrote, “and if continued to be spread may taint the image of the executives and call into question their integrity.”
They insisted that if there was any evidence of sabotage, they should be granted a fair hearing to either clear their names or be found guilty based on verifiable proof.
An Unprecedented Move in PENGASSAN’s History
For many within the union, the NGIC/NGML saga has no precedent. Even during the most turbulent industrial actions of the past — including the major oil sector strikes of the 1990s and early 2000s — branch executives were rarely punished for failing to execute complex directives under difficult operational conditions.
The NGIC and NGML branches pointed out that in their entire history, they had never completely shut down customer operations during a strike. In their words, “the reward for an unsuccessful struggle should not be dissolution, but correction and re-strategizing for future success.”
They argued that their leadership had, in fact, gone to extraordinary lengths to comply with the strike directive. They cited actions that management had described as “unprecedented in the history of NGIC/NGML,” including deliberate disruption of facilities, system shutdowns, and damage to assets — all at significant personal and professional risk.
Despite these efforts, gas continued to flow, largely because of external factors beyond their control: continuous injection from gas producers, the presence of military personnel around key sites, and technical complexities that prevented total stoppage.
The Dangote Dimension
At the heart of this labor conflict lies the shadow of the Dangote Refinery — Africa’s largest single-train petroleum processing plant and a symbol of Nigeria’s industrial ambition. For months, the refinery has been under scrutiny over its gas supply arrangements and its influence in the country’s energy ecosystem.
Dangote Refinery sources much of its feedstock — including gas for power generation — through government-managed infrastructure. This dependence has made it a lightning rod in disputes involving state agencies, marketers, and labor unions.
PENGASSAN’s demand that gas supply to Dangote be cut off during the strike was, therefore, not just a protest move but a political statement — a warning against what union leaders perceive as the creeping privatization of national energy resources without fair labor representation.
Insiders say the refinery’s continued gas inflow during the strike angered PENGASSAN’s top officials, who saw it as a sign that their authority was being undermined.
Crisis of Trust and Power Struggle Within
The internal fractures exposed by this episode go beyond operational disagreements. At stake is the question of control — who truly calls the shots within PENGASSAN, and to what extent do local branches retain autonomy in executing national directives?
By dissolving the NGIC and NGML branch executives, the national leadership sent a clear message: compliance is not optional. But critics argue that the move risks alienating loyal members who have risked their jobs and reputations for the union’s cause.
Some union insiders view the decision as an overreach — a centralization of power that contradicts the democratic ethos of labor movements. Others, however, defend it as necessary discipline in a time of growing internal dissent and external pressure.
Either way, the dissolution has triggered debates about accountability, transparency, and fairness in the union’s internal governance.
Fear, Intimidation, and the Military Factor
The NGIC and NGML congress members say their leaders faced unusual resistance on the ground. In several locations, military personnel reportedly surrounded gas infrastructure to prevent disruption — a reflection of the government’s anxiety over potential energy instability.
One congress member who spoke to this newspaper under condition of anonymity said:
“We were heavily outnumbered. In some facilities, the military made it clear that any attempt to tamper with supply lines would be treated as sabotage. How do you expect workers to risk their lives under such conditions?”
This climate of fear, they argue, made it practically impossible to enforce a total shutdown. Yet, instead of understanding their predicament, the national body chose to punish them.
Reputation on the Line
For PENGASSAN, one of Nigeria’s most respected unions, this controversy could not have come at a worse time. The association has long prided itself on internal unity and disciplined negotiation with both corporate entities and the government. But the Dangote gas crisis threatens to fracture that reputation.
Observers say the episode exposes the union’s vulnerability to corporate and political pressure. With the government keen to protect the Dangote Refinery as a strategic asset, and with the refinery’s vast economic footprint, any industrial action that threatens its operations is bound to attract pushback — not just from management but from powerful state actors.
The NGIC and NGML branches’ fate may thus be more political than procedural.
The Larger Implications
Beyond the union politics, the conflict underscores deeper questions about Nigeria’s gas supply management and the emerging dominance of private refineries in a state-controlled ecosystem.
As the country transitions towards greater local refining capacity, unions like PENGASSAN are finding themselves navigating a more complex landscape — one where the line between public and private interests is increasingly blurred.
The dissolution of two major branch executives signals a dangerous precedent: that union loyalty can be punished for failing to disrupt a facility seen as “too big to challenge.”
For workers across the energy sector, the message is chilling.
A Call for Reconciliation
Despite the tension, the NGIC and NGML congress members have appealed for calm and dialogue. They insist they remain loyal to PENGASSAN’s national leadership but want fairness, transparency, and respect for due process.
Their letter ends on a conciliatory note:
“We appeal that fair hearing be granted to our comrades to either clear their names or be found guilty with evidence. We remain committed to the cause of the union and to future success through collective re-strategizing.”
Whether PENGASSAN’s national executive council will heed that call remains uncertain. But what is clear is that the Dangote gas saga has exposed cracks in one of Nigeria’s strongest labor structures — cracks that, if not quickly repaired, could weaken the union’s influence in future energy disputes.
Conclusion
The internal war within PENGASSAN is more than a labor dispute. It is a mirror reflecting the power struggles, political pressures, and moral dilemmas facing organized labor in a rapidly changing Nigeria.
As the dust settles, the real question may not be whether the NGIC and NGML branches failed to cut off gas to Dangote, but whether PENGASSAN itself can survive the strain of its own contradictions — between loyalty and autonomy, between protest and pragmatism, between power and principle.
In the end, what began as an industrial strike to assert control over gas supply has evolved into a defining test of integrity for both the union and Nigeria’s energy governance.
Post a Comment