The Trade Union Congress (TUC) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) are facing separate legal challenges at the National Industrial Court in Port Harcourt over the suspension of a Rivers labour leader and the removal of an elected union executive.
The cases were filed by Comrade Ikechukwu Foster Onyefuru, a senior employee of Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited, formerly Shell Petroleum Development Company, alongside nine other union members. The matters are registered as NICN/PH/60/2026 and NICN/PH/63/2026.
In the first suit, Onyefuru is challenging his suspension and removal as Chairman of the Rivers State Council of the TUC. He said he became chairman on September 26, 2022, and is asking the court to declare his suspension unlawful and return him to office for the remaining period of his tenure.
The dispute followed disciplinary action taken against him by the TUC on June 25, 2024. The union had accused him of misconduct, including granting media interviews without approval from its national secretariat. The action also followed a query issued to him five days earlier.
Onyefuru, however, contends that the procedure used to suspend him did not comply with the TUC Constitution 2024. He argued that disciplinary action against an elected state chairman should be handled by the appropriate national organs of the union and must follow due process, including an opportunity for the affected official to be heard.
He also argued that the earlier query issued to him and the apology he later made did not amount to the formal disciplinary process required under the union’s rules.
According to the claimant, he tried to settle the matter outside court. He referred to a letter he sent on May 6, 2025, requesting a meeting over the situation within the Rivers State council, but the attempt did not resolve the disagreement.
The defendants in the case include the TUC, its National President Festus Osifo, Rivers State Chairman Samuel Ogan and Secretary-General Abba Toro.
Onyefuru is asking the court to cancel any later election or appointment through which Ogan or another person was installed as his replacement. He is also seeking N10 million in damages and N5 million to cover the cost of the legal action.
The second case concerns Onyefuru and nine other members of the former Shell Petroleum Development Company branch executive of PENGASSAN, now operating under Renaissance Africa Energy Company.
The group said they were elected into the branch executive council on August 30, 2024, for a three-year term expected to end in August 2027. They are challenging PENGASSAN’s decision to dissolve the elected body on May 9, 2025, and replace it with a caretaker committee headed by Akpe Emmanuel.
The claimants said the dissolution took place shortly after Renaissance Africa Energy Holdings completed its purchase of SPDC shares on March 13, 2025. They are asking the court to determine whether PENGASSAN had the power under its 2022 constitution to remove an elected branch executive under the circumstances.
PENGASSAN, its President Festus Osifo, Secretary Lumumba Okugbawa, members of the caretaker committee and Renaissance Africa Energy Company Limited are listed as defendants.
The claimants have also applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop the defendants from treating the caretaker committee as the lawful leadership of the branch while the case is being heard.
They further want the court to prevent any action that would keep them away from union activities or elections. They are also challenging proposed compulsory deductions for the PENGASSAN Foundation, referring to communications on the issue dated December 14, 2025, and January 30, 2026.
The group said it had previously objected to the proposed deductions in a letter to the management of Renaissance Africa Energy Company dated January 5, 2026.
Both matters remain before the National Industrial Court in Port Harcourt, and the court has not yet delivered a final decision on any of the claims. The allegations and arguments presented by the claimants therefore remain subject to determination by the court.
As of the time of the report, the defendants had not filed their responses to the cases. Attempts to obtain their reactions were also unsuccessful.