Trade Disputes In Nigeria: An Examination Of The Issues Arising From The JUSUN Strike

By ??????
????????.

INTRODUCTION

The fabric of any society rests on the interaction of people and
the denomination of value exemplified in the exchange of goods and
services. For various and obvious reasons, there is an alarming
rise in trade dispute in Nigeria. The rise in trade dispute is
responsible for the incessant industrial actions by trade unions
and other affected associations in the country resulting to
impediment of economic activities, standstill of progress in
affected sectors and increase in unemployment rate. Most usually,
trade disputes result in strike actions as internal mechanisms to
resolve these disputes before strike actions are unproductive.

In Nigeria, the first nationwide strike was in 1945[i]. Since then, major strike actions are fueled
prominently by Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), Academic Staff Union
of Universities (ASUU), National Union of Teachers (NUT),
Association of Resident Doctors (ARD), Nigerian Medical Association
(NMA), Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of
Nigeria (PENGASSAN), Nigerian Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Workers (NUPENG), and now the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria
(JUSUN).

On the 6^th of April, 2021, judicial workers under the
aegis of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) embarked on an
indefinite nationwide strike to push for the implementation of
financial autonomy for the judiciary[ii]. Financial
autonomy entails that the judiciary will no longer have to wait for
state governors for funds as it will have a separate allocation of
its own in the state appropriation laws in the annual budget of
each state. The dependent nature of the  judiciary which is
even determined by the generosity of state governors on the amount
it receives has dampened the effectiveness of the judiciary which
makes the ongoing struggle long overdue.

As at 30^th of April, 2021, courts across the country
are under lock and key putting all court activities on a
standstill. As the strike lingers, many legal issues have sprung
up, one of which is the adverse effect it has on the justice
system. A critical look at the legal issues that may have emanated
from the on-going strike action of JUSUN will be examined in this
piece.

WHAT IS A TRADE DISPUTE?

In a layman’s term, trade dispute is any disagreement between an
employer and workers.

However, trade dispute is defined in Section 47 (1) of the Trade
Disputes Act (TDA), 2004 as “any dispute between employer and
workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the form of employment and physical
condition of work of any person”.

Also, Section 54 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act (NICA)
defines “trade dispute” to mean “any dispute between employer
and employees including dispute between their respective
organisations and federations which is connected with: the
employment or non-employment of any person, terms of employment and
physical conditions of work of any person, or the conclusion or
variation of a collective agreement, and an alleged
dispute“.

Noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court in
National Union of Electricity Employees v. Bureau for
Public Enterprises[iii]^[1], following its
earlier decision in National Union of Road Transport
Workers v. Ogbodo[iv] held that in
determining the existence or otherwise of trade dispute, all the
ingredients mentioned in Section 47(1) of TDA must be present.

The ongoing strike action of the JUSUN is due to the failure of
Federal and State Governments to grant the judiciary the
constitutionally enshrined financial autonomy[v], one of major pillars needed to ensure effective
dispensation of justice. It is a known fact that the Judiciary is
the “last hope of the common man”. This presupposes that it is the
only place the common man can get justice. And in ensuring this,
the judiciary needs to be independent and free from unnecessary
interference from the executive arm Also, by virtue of Nigeria’s
status as a democratic state, there exist a clear separation of
powers between the three arms of government as enshrined in the
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, (as amended).

Thus, the question that comes to the mind of readers is whether
or not the reason for the ongoing strike of JUSUN constitute a
trade dispute. By virtue of the statutory definitions of trade
dispute present in the TDA, 2004 and the NICA, the demand for
financial autonomy of the judiciary is a trade dispute because it
concerns the condition of work needed by judicial workers and the
Bench to effectively perform their duties and ensure that justice
reigns at all times. We must bear in mind that, on May 22, 2020,
President Muhammadu Buhari signed an executive order granting
financial autonomy to the legislature and the judiciary across the
36 states of the federation[vi]. This requires
all states to include the allocations of both the legislature and
the judiciary in their budget which is yet to be implemented by
state governments.

DOES JUSUN AS A TRADE UNION HAVE THE RIGHT TO EMBARK ON
STRIKE?

In the occurrence of a trade dispute, parties including both the
employee(s) or their organizations on one hand and employers or
their respective organizations on the other hand employ different
tools to ensure that the other party accede to its demands. One of
these tools is strike action. Strike is an essential tool of trade
unions all over the world for the defence and promotion of the
rights and interests of their members and to further press home
their demands. In the case of the employers wanting the employees
to accede to their demands, lock-outs is one of the available tools
to be used.

Section 48 of the TDA, defines strike “as a cessation of work by
a body of persons in consequence of a dispute in a bid to compel
their employers to accept or not to accept some terms and physical
condition of work”. In Nigeria, the right of workers to embark on
strike action is not expressly stated or provided for in any extant
law. Different jurists in Nigeria have argued in support and
against the existence of the right to embark on strike due to the
ambiguous provision of Section 18 of the TDA, 2004.

On one hand, Nigeria being a country governed by common law,
some are of the opinion that since the contract of employment is
viewed from a master-servant perspective, embarking on strike
action is a breach of the contract of employment as established by
the House of Lords in the famous case of Rookes v
Barnard[vii]^[2]. Also, it
has been argued that the provision of  section 18 of the TDA,
2004 bans trade unions from embarking on strike in a situation
where trade disputes mechanism itemized in Section 18 (1) amongst
other conditions have commenced.

However, since the constitution is the
grundnorm, the writers of this piece
argue vehemently in support of the point of view that the right to
strike can be implied from the constitutional right to peaceful
assembly and association provided in Section 40 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) which
empowers workers to join any trade union of their choice to ensure
their interests are protected. To further buttress this point of
view, foremost Constitutional Law expert, Professor Ben O. Nwabueze
opines that Section 18 (1) of TDA is void for being inconsistent
with Section 34 (1) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which prohibits forced
labour. According to him, the right to collective bargaining cannot
be separated from the right to press forward the demands of the
union through strike should the negotiation fail or breakdown.

Judicially, the right of workers to embark on strike has been
recognized. This was the decision of the court in
Crofter Hand Woven Tweed Co. Ltd v Veitch[viii]^[3]. As well
as in the Nigerian case of Union Bank of Nigeria V.
Edet[ix], the right to embark on
strike has been judicially recognized which gives room for trade
unions to embark on strike. Also, the Supreme Court of Ireland
noted in Educational Co. v.
Fitzpatrick[x] that the right
to embark on strike can be implied from the right to peaceful
assembly and association.

In light of the above arguments, it is safe to conclude the
strike action embarked on JUSUN is legal and it’s not inconsistent
with the provisions of the constitution.

THE WAY-FORWARD IN RESOLVING THE DISPUTE

The fact that the activities of an arm of government– Judiciary
is on standstill should be a major concern for any responsible
government because of the adverse consequences it has on the smooth
running of any society. In the opinion of the writers of this
piece, the Federal and State governments must as a matter of
urgency take the bull by its horn by acceding to the justifiable
demands of the JUSUN.

Accordingly, the trade dispute settlement mechanisms[xi] as outlined in the TDA, 2004 and other extant
laws of the country must be employed in order for normalcy to
return back to the judiciary. By virtue of the leading statue in
Nigeria with regards to the settlement of trade dispute- Trade
Disputes Act, 2004, the machinery for resolving trade disputes is
founded on hierarchy which must be strictly followed. These stages
are; by the parties; by conciliation; by arbitration and by the
court.

As at 30^th of Aril, 2021, the current stage with
regards to resolving the dispute is the parties’ stage as both
parties, the Federal and State governments on one hand and
representatives of JUSUN on the other hand have met a number of
times in a bid to resolve the dispute, though unproductive as to
resolving the dispute. Under our current laws, JUSUN as a trade
union is mandated to constitute an electoral college to elect
members who will serve as their representatives in negotiations
during this process. The meeting held by both parties is termed
“collective bargaining” process as both parties are negotiating to
end the dispute. The end product of this process is “collective
agreement”.

Section 48 of the TDA defines collective agreement as any
agreement in writing for the settlement of disputes and relating to
terms of employment and physical conditions of work concluded
between an employer, a group of employers or organisations
representing workers, on the one hand; and one or more of trade
unions or organisations representing workers, or the duly appointed
representatives of any body of workers on the other hand”.

Taking into consideration the issues at hand, there is no prior
agreement between the government and the employees’ association
“JUSUN”. It must be expressly stated that the Executive Order No.
10 of 2020 signed by President Muhammadu Buhari; granting financial
autonomy to the legislature and the judiciary across the 36 states
of the federation and also Sections 180 and 121 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended)
representing a binding agreement to the effect of being a social
contract or agreement between the government and the people does
not constitute a valid collective agreement according to the
definition in Section 48 of the TDA.

Under common law, collective agreements are not legally binding.
However, in Nigeria, by virtue of Section 3 of the TDA, 2004,
collective agreements freely entered into by both parties may have
the effect of law after being submitted to the Minister of Labour
and Employment who has the discretion to make an order specifying
the terms and portions of the agreement that shall be binding on
the employers and workers.

In occurrence of a situation where both parties fail to reach a
collective agreement, Section 4(2) of the Act provides that the
parties should “meet together by themselves or their
representatives, under the presidency of a mediator mutually agreed
upon and appointed by or on behalf of the parties with a view to
amicable settlement of the dispute”. This is the second of the two
ways parties can resolve the dispute between each other.

If after such appointment, the parties are still unable to reach
an agreement, the Minister of Labour and Employment may intervene
through the appointment of a conciliator according to section 8 of
the TDA, 2004. This is referred to as “apprehension of trade
dispute” and it is the second stage referred to as the conciliation
stage. Section 5 of the TDA, 2004 indeed grants the Minister of
Labour and Employment power to apprehend any dispute at any stage.
By virtue of Section 40, either of the parties is free to request
for conciliation which must be agreed to by the other party. If
agreed to, the dispute will then be referred to a
conciliator(s).

If no agreement is reached at the conciliation stage, in a bid
to bring an end to the dispute, the Minister may reference the
dispute to an Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) in the Section
9(1) of the TDA, 2004. This is stage is referred to as the
arbitration stage. Halsbury’s Laws of
England defines arbitration “as the reference of a
dispute or differences of a dispute between not less than two
parties for determination, after hearing both sides in a judicial
manner, by a person or persons other than a court of competent
jurisdiction”. The decision gotten at this stage is referred to as
“Award”. By virtue of section 12 (2) (c), the “Award” will be
published in the Federal Gazette if there is no objection to it
within 7 days.

After exhaustion of the means of settlement above, and an
agreement has not been struck, the parties may then proceed to a
court of competent jurisdiction on civil matters relating to trade
disputes- the National Industrial Court (NIC) for final resolution
of the dispute. This is the final stage in the resolution of trade
dispute in Nigeria. However, the dispute must be resolved because
workers of the National Industrial Court (NIC) are also out of work
as they are part of a party involved in the dispute. Another
striking issue to consider would be whether the National Industrial
Court, being a party to the dispute would not be devoid of
jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matter in the event that the
ongoing strike gets to that stage on the basis of the principle of
Nemo Judex In causa sua? The writers are of the view that
the principle of Nemo Judex In causa sua won’t be
applicable since it is the members of the court and rightly
not, the judges to adjudicate over the matter.

CONCLUSION

The writers agree that the judiciary is poorly underfunded
coupled with unnecessary interference from the executive.
Government at  both state and federal levels must grant the
judiciary the necessary autonomy and fund it properly to meet
international standard. The courts should be equipped to aid the
Bench in the smooth discharge of their duties. The government must
put in place necessary machinery within the best possible time to
ensure the judiciary gets it autonomy.

There is practically no country in the world that can exist
without an arm or body responsible for adjudicating cases and
resolving disputes, even though they are in their weakest form.
Even during the darkest days of Military dictatorship in Nigeria,
the judiciary adjudicated on disputes involving persons,
authorities and governments. In any circumstance where courts are
under lock and key, a common man cannot get justice and the society
might degenerate into a lawless state. The absence of the judiciary
in the country at this crucial point in the country’s history will
to miscarriage of justice as justice delayed is justice denied.

Written by ?????? ????????., +2348109899747

[i] Mike, H ‘ The 1945 Nigerian General Strike ‘
available at https://libcom.org/library/1945-nigerian-general-strike^[4], (accessed 30 April
2021).

[ii] “Why JUSUN strike cannot be faulted, by CJN”
TheGuardian available at 
https://guardian.ng/news/why-jusun-strike-cannot-be-faulted-by-cjn/^[5], (accessed 30
April, 2021)

[iii]^[6]
(2010) 41 NSCQR (pt 1) 611

[iv] (1998) 2 NWLR (pt 537) 189

[v] Sections 80 and 121 of the 1999 Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended)

[vi] Executive Order No. 10 of 2020.

[vii]^[7]
(1964) AC 1129

[viii]^[8]
(1942) AC 435

[ix] (1993) 4NWLR (Pt. 287) P.288

[x] (No. 2) (1961). IR 345

[xi] O. A. Orifowomo, M. O. A.
Ashiru, “Settlement of Trade Disputes: Nigeria’s Labour Court
in Perspectives” available at https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLPG/article/view/22559^[9]
(accessed 30 April 2021).

By ??????
????????.

INTRODUCTION

The fabric of any society rests on the interaction of people and
the denomination of value exemplified in the exchange of goods and
services. For various and obvious reasons, there is an alarming
rise in trade dispute in Nigeria. The rise in trade dispute is
responsible for the incessant industrial actions by trade unions
and other affected associations in the country resulting to
impediment of economic activities, standstill of progress in
affected sectors and increase in unemployment rate. Most usually,
trade disputes result in strike actions as internal mechanisms to
resolve these disputes before strike actions are unproductive.

In Nigeria, the first nationwide strike was in 1945[i]. Since then, major strike actions are fueled
prominently by Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), Academic Staff Union
of Universities (ASUU), National Union of Teachers (NUT),
Association of Resident Doctors (ARD), Nigerian Medical Association
(NMA), Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of
Nigeria (PENGASSAN), Nigerian Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Workers (NUPENG), and now the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria
(JUSUN).

On the 6^th of April, 2021, judicial workers under the
aegis of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) embarked on an
indefinite nationwide strike to push for the implementation of
financial autonomy for the judiciary[ii]. Financial
autonomy entails that the judiciary will no longer have to wait for
state governors for funds as it will have a separate allocation of
its own in the state appropriation laws in the annual budget of
each state. The dependent nature of the  judiciary which is
even determined by the generosity of state governors on the amount
it receives has dampened the effectiveness of the judiciary which
makes the ongoing struggle long overdue.

As at 30^th of April, 2021, courts across the country
are under lock and key putting all court activities on a
standstill. As the strike lingers, many legal issues have sprung
up, one of which is the adverse effect it has on the justice
system. A critical look at the legal issues that may have emanated
from the on-going strike action of JUSUN will be examined in this
piece.

WHAT IS A TRADE DISPUTE?

In a layman’s term, trade dispute is any disagreement between an
employer and workers.

However, trade dispute is defined in Section 47 (1) of the Trade
Disputes Act (TDA), 2004 as “any dispute between employer and
workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the form of employment and physical
condition of work of any person”.

Also, Section 54 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act (NICA)
defines “trade dispute” to mean “any dispute between employer
and employees including dispute between their respective
organisations and federations which is connected with: the
employment or non-employment of any person, terms of employment and
physical conditions of work of any person, or the conclusion or
variation of a collective agreement, and an alleged
dispute“.

Noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court in
National Union of Electricity Employees v. Bureau for
Public Enterprises[iii]^[1], following its
earlier decision in National Union of Road Transport
Workers v. Ogbodo[iv] held that in
determining the existence or otherwise of trade dispute, all the
ingredients mentioned in Section 47(1) of TDA must be present.

The ongoing strike action of the JUSUN is due to the failure of
Federal and State Governments to grant the judiciary the
constitutionally enshrined financial autonomy[v], one of major pillars needed to ensure effective
dispensation of justice. It is a known fact that the Judiciary is
the “last hope of the common man”. This presupposes that it is the
only place the common man can get justice. And in ensuring this,
the judiciary needs to be independent and free from unnecessary
interference from the executive arm Also, by virtue of Nigeria’s
status as a democratic state, there exist a clear separation of
powers between the three arms of government as enshrined in the
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, (as amended).

Thus, the question that comes to the mind of readers is whether
or not the reason for the ongoing strike of JUSUN constitute a
trade dispute. By virtue of the statutory definitions of trade
dispute present in the TDA, 2004 and the NICA, the demand for
financial autonomy of the judiciary is a trade dispute because it
concerns the condition of work needed by judicial workers and the
Bench to effectively perform their duties and ensure that justice
reigns at all times. We must bear in mind that, on May 22, 2020,
President Muhammadu Buhari signed an executive order granting
financial autonomy to the legislature and the judiciary across the
36 states of the federation[vi]. This requires
all states to include the allocations of both the legislature and
the judiciary in their budget which is yet to be implemented by
state governments.

DOES JUSUN AS A TRADE UNION HAVE THE RIGHT TO EMBARK ON
STRIKE?

In the occurrence of a trade dispute, parties including both the
employee(s) or their organizations on one hand and employers or
their respective organizations on the other hand employ different
tools to ensure that the other party accede to its demands. One of
these tools is strike action. Strike is an essential tool of trade
unions all over the world for the defence and promotion of the
rights and interests of their members and to further press home
their demands. In the case of the employers wanting the employees
to accede to their demands, lock-outs is one of the available tools
to be used.

Section 48 of the TDA, defines strike “as a cessation of work by
a body of persons in consequence of a dispute in a bid to compel
their employers to accept or not to accept some terms and physical
condition of work”. In Nigeria, the right of workers to embark on
strike action is not expressly stated or provided for in any extant
law. Different jurists in Nigeria have argued in support and
against the existence of the right to embark on strike due to the
ambiguous provision of Section 18 of the TDA, 2004.

On one hand, Nigeria being a country governed by common law,
some are of the opinion that since the contract of employment is
viewed from a master-servant perspective, embarking on strike
action is a breach of the contract of employment as established by
the House of Lords in the famous case of Rookes v
Barnard[vii]^[2]. Also, it
has been argued that the provision of  section 18 of the TDA,
2004 bans trade unions from embarking on strike in a situation
where trade disputes mechanism itemized in Section 18 (1) amongst
other conditions have commenced.

However, since the constitution is the
grundnorm, the writers of this piece
argue vehemently in support of the point of view that the right to
strike can be implied from the constitutional right to peaceful
assembly and association provided in Section 40 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) which
empowers workers to join any trade union of their choice to ensure
their interests are protected. To further buttress this point of
view, foremost Constitutional Law expert, Professor Ben O. Nwabueze
opines that Section 18 (1) of TDA is void for being inconsistent
with Section 34 (1) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which prohibits forced
labour. According to him, the right to collective bargaining cannot
be separated from the right to press forward the demands of the
union through strike should the negotiation fail or breakdown.

Judicially, the right of workers to embark on strike has been
recognized. This was the decision of the court in
Crofter Hand Woven Tweed Co. Ltd v Veitch[viii]^[3]. As well
as in the Nigerian case of Union Bank of Nigeria V.
Edet[ix], the right to embark on
strike has been judicially recognized which gives room for trade
unions to embark on strike. Also, the Supreme Court of Ireland
noted in Educational Co. v.
Fitzpatrick[x] that the right
to embark on strike can be implied from the right to peaceful
assembly and association.

In light of the above arguments, it is safe to conclude the
strike action embarked on JUSUN is legal and it’s not inconsistent
with the provisions of the constitution.

THE WAY-FORWARD IN RESOLVING THE DISPUTE

The fact that the activities of an arm of government– Judiciary
is on standstill should be a major concern for any responsible
government because of the adverse consequences it has on the smooth
running of any society. In the opinion of the writers of this
piece, the Federal and State governments must as a matter of
urgency take the bull by its horn by acceding to the justifiable
demands of the JUSUN.

Accordingly, the trade dispute settlement mechanisms[xi] as outlined in the TDA, 2004 and other extant
laws of the country must be employed in order for normalcy to
return back to the judiciary. By virtue of the leading statue in
Nigeria with regards to the settlement of trade dispute- Trade
Disputes Act, 2004, the machinery for resolving trade disputes is
founded on hierarchy which must be strictly followed. These stages
are; by the parties; by conciliation; by arbitration and by the
court.

As at 30^th of Aril, 2021, the current stage with
regards to resolving the dispute is the parties’ stage as both
parties, the Federal and State governments on one hand and
representatives of JUSUN on the other hand have met a number of
times in a bid to resolve the dispute, though unproductive as to
resolving the dispute. Under our current laws, JUSUN as a trade
union is mandated to constitute an electoral college to elect
members who will serve as their representatives in negotiations
during this process. The meeting held by both parties is termed
“collective bargaining” process as both parties are negotiating to
end the dispute. The end product of this process is “collective
agreement”.

Section 48 of the TDA defines collective agreement as any
agreement in writing for the settlement of disputes and relating to
terms of employment and physical conditions of work concluded
between an employer, a group of employers or organisations
representing workers, on the one hand; and one or more of trade
unions or organisations representing workers, or the duly appointed
representatives of any body of workers on the other hand”.

Taking into consideration the issues at hand, there is no prior
agreement between the government and the employees’ association
“JUSUN”. It must be expressly stated that the Executive Order No.
10 of 2020 signed by President Muhammadu Buhari; granting financial
autonomy to the legislature and the judiciary across the 36 states
of the federation and also Sections 180 and 121 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended)
representing a binding agreement to the effect of being a social
contract or agreement between the government and the people does
not constitute a valid collective agreement according to the
definition in Section 48 of the TDA.

Under common law, collective agreements are not legally binding.
However, in Nigeria, by virtue of Section 3 of the TDA, 2004,
collective agreements freely entered into by both parties may have
the effect of law after being submitted to the Minister of Labour
and Employment who has the discretion to make an order specifying
the terms and portions of the agreement that shall be binding on
the employers and workers.

In occurrence of a situation where both parties fail to reach a
collective agreement, Section 4(2) of the Act provides that the
parties should “meet together by themselves or their
representatives, under the presidency of a mediator mutually agreed
upon and appointed by or on behalf of the parties with a view to
amicable settlement of the dispute”. This is the second of the two
ways parties can resolve the dispute between each other.

If after such appointment, the parties are still unable to reach
an agreement, the Minister of Labour and Employment may intervene
through the appointment of a conciliator according to section 8 of
the TDA, 2004. This is referred to as “apprehension of trade
dispute” and it is the second stage referred to as the conciliation
stage. Section 5 of the TDA, 2004 indeed grants the Minister of
Labour and Employment power to apprehend any dispute at any stage.
By virtue of Section 40, either of the parties is free to request
for conciliation which must be agreed to by the other party. If
agreed to, the dispute will then be referred to a
conciliator(s).

If no agreement is reached at the conciliation stage, in a bid
to bring an end to the dispute, the Minister may reference the
dispute to an Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) in the Section
9(1) of the TDA, 2004. This is stage is referred to as the
arbitration stage. Halsbury’s Laws of
England defines arbitration “as the reference of a
dispute or differences of a dispute between not less than two
parties for determination, after hearing both sides in a judicial
manner, by a person or persons other than a court of competent
jurisdiction”. The decision gotten at this stage is referred to as
“Award”. By virtue of section 12 (2) (c), the “Award” will be
published in the Federal Gazette if there is no objection to it
within 7 days.

After exhaustion of the means of settlement above, and an
agreement has not been struck, the parties may then proceed to a
court of competent jurisdiction on civil matters relating to trade
disputes- the National Industrial Court (NIC) for final resolution
of the dispute. This is the final stage in the resolution of trade
dispute in Nigeria. However, the dispute must be resolved because
workers of the National Industrial Court (NIC) are also out of work
as they are part of a party involved in the dispute. Another
striking issue to consider would be whether the National Industrial
Court, being a party to the dispute would not be devoid of
jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matter in the event that the
ongoing strike gets to that stage on the basis of the principle of
Nemo Judex In causa sua? The writers are of the view that
the principle of Nemo Judex In causa sua won’t be
applicable since it is the members of the court and rightly
not, the judges to adjudicate over the matter.

CONCLUSION

The writers agree that the judiciary is poorly underfunded
coupled with unnecessary interference from the executive.
Government at  both state and federal levels must grant the
judiciary the necessary autonomy and fund it properly to meet
international standard. The courts should be equipped to aid the
Bench in the smooth discharge of their duties. The government must
put in place necessary machinery within the best possible time to
ensure the judiciary gets it autonomy.

There is practically no country in the world that can exist
without an arm or body responsible for adjudicating cases and
resolving disputes, even though they are in their weakest form.
Even during the darkest days of Military dictatorship in Nigeria,
the judiciary adjudicated on disputes involving persons,
authorities and governments. In any circumstance where courts are
under lock and key, a common man cannot get justice and the society
might degenerate into a lawless state. The absence of the judiciary
in the country at this crucial point in the country’s history will
to miscarriage of justice as justice delayed is justice denied.

Written by ?????? ????????., +2348109899747

[i] Mike, H ‘ The 1945 Nigerian General Strike
‘ available at https://libcom.org/library/1945-nigerian-general-strike^[4], (accessed 30 April
2021).

[ii] “Why JUSUN strike cannot be faulted, by
CJN” TheGuardian available at 
https://guardian.ng/news/why-jusun-strike-cannot-be-faulted-by-cjn/^[5], (accessed 30
April, 2021)

[iii]^[6]
(2010) 41 NSCQR (pt 1) 611

[iv] (1998) 2 NWLR (pt 537) 189

[v] Sections 80 and 121 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended)

[vi] Executive Order No. 10 of 2020.

[vii]^[7]
(1964) AC 1129

[viii]^[8]
(1942) AC 435

[ix] (1993) 4NWLR (Pt. 287) P.288

[x] (No. 2) (1961). IR 345

[xi] O. A. Orifowomo, M. O. A. Ashiru,
“Settlement of Trade Disputes: Nigeria’s Labour Court in
Perspectives” available at https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLPG/article/view/22559^[9]
(accessed 30 April 2021).