Nigerians heaved a sigh of relief last Thursday as the strike embarked upon by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) since February 14 was suspended exactly eight months after the commencement of the industrial action. The leadership of the union had, in a statement issued last Thursday, directed its members “to resume all services hitherto withdrawn with effect from 12:01 on Friday, October 14, 2022.”
The industrial action had taken a great toll on the nation, especially students who were forced to stay away from school for so long as well as lecturers and people who eke their livelihood out of the economic activities carried out on the various campuses. Between 2020 and 2022, federal and state universities lost at least 18 months of study. As an aftermath of the 2020 industrial action, some universities lost a whole session. It is not unlikely that some universities may also announce the cancellation of a whole session as a consequence of the just resolved crisis. In addition, some students have diverted their passion and attention to other things and have abandoned education, while some academics have also relocated as a way of actualizing their personal goals and taking care of their families. Similarly, the government will have to pay the lecturers for the eight months they were on strike. So, all things considered, the execution of the strike cost the nation quite a great deal.
Although ASUU, in the statement issued to announce the suspension of the exercise, thanked President MuhammaduBuhari, the leadership of the House of Representatives and a few other people for their intervention, which it said facilitated the resolution of the imbroglio, the undeniable fact is that ASUU was forced to put the industrial action on hold as a result of the ruling of the Appeal Court penultimate Friday which gave the union seven days to return to work. The Federal Government had earlier taken ASUU to the National Industrial Court over the strike. The court then had ordered the union to call off its strike after which the union went on appeal. But the appellate court ruled that calling off the strike was a condition precedent for the union’s request to appeal the ruling of the National Industrial Court. So, willy-nilly, ASUU had to call off the strike.
This then means that the strike that was called off after eight months of causing millions of university undergraduates to idle away was avoidable. The leadership of the Ministry of Labour and Employment could have instituted the legal action that forced ASUU to call of the strike shortly after the announcement of the strike action. In ordering ASUU to call off the strike, the Industrial Court relied on Section 18 sub-section 1C of the Trade Dispute Act (1976), which states that an employer shall not declare or take part in a lock-out and a worker shall not take part in a strike in connection with any trade dispute where the dispute has been referred to the National Industrial Court.
The implication is that this law prohibits the continuation of a strike action once an industrial dispute is referred to the Industrial Court just as it disallows an employer from taking any punitive measure against a worker once a matter has been referred to the court. So, if that provision has always been there why have we always had protracted strikes?
To contextualize it, if that provision had been in the statute book before ASUU embarked on the latest strike why did the government allow the strike to linger for so long? If our law had already taken care of this ugly situation of young people being subjected to varied harrowing experiences as a result of the strike, why did we allow the ugly situation to persist? If the ASUU’s strike action could have been dealt with by the provisions of the law why did we engage in the rigmarole of setting up committee after committee to resolve the crisis? Why is it that as a nation we revel in complicating simple matters?
Could the government officials who handled the ASUU matter have been unaware of the provision of the law? Is it possible that a ministry where a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, in person of Mr Festus Keyamo, is a junior minister will not know that there is a provision in the constitution that could take care of this challenge without the institutions being closed down for so long? Is it possible that a union like ASUU that is composed of both knowledgeable and learned people would be unaware of the provision of the law in this respect? Is it also possible that social critic and fiery lawyer, Femi Falana SAN, ASUU’s lawyer, would be unaware of this legal provision? So, if the government representatives knew and the leadership of ASUU as well as their lawyer knew, why did they not toe the path of law to ensure an early resolution of the crisis? Why did they allow the strike to drag and the suffering of the students as well as their parents to endure for so long?
Or could they have been genuinely ignorant of the provision of the law? Could they have caused so much hardship on students and the Nigerian populace as a result of their ignorance? But claiming ignorance of the provision would be tantamount to gross incompetence. If they did not know what are they doing in the offices they occupy? If Dr Chris Ngige and Mr Festus Keyamo as well as the top civil servants in their ministry did not know that they could stop a strike action by taking the matter to the Industrial Court what is the justification for retaining them on the job? If ASUU leadership and MrFalana claimed ignorance of the Trade Dispute Act, what are they still doing as ASUU leaders or ASUU lawyer?
Irrespective of the reason they may give for the slip, what is not contestable is that their actions and inactions have robbed young people of eight months of their lives. This is their legacy, and for this they would be remembered for a long time to come.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then