FG, ASUU suit: Court confirms CONUA, NAMDA as trade unions

<p>The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has lost its bid to stop the recognition of its rival unions, the Congress of Nigerian University Academics (CONUA) and the National Association of Medical and Dental Academics (NAMDA), as trade unions as the court on Tuesday affirmed their recognition as trade unions in Nigerian universities.</p>, <p>The National Industrial Court in its ruling on the suit between the Federal Government and ASUU affirmed that CONUA and NAMDA are duly registered as trade unions and have the right to operate on Nigerian campuses.</p>, <p>The claimant in the suit, ASUU, had dragged the Minister of Labour and Employment, The Registrar, Trade Union, CONUA and NAMDA as first, second, third and fourth defendants respectively.</p>, <p>But delivering judgment, Justice Benedict Kanyip held that in line with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Act, there could be more than one trade union within employment.</p>, <p>The judge in addition stated that contrary to the claimant’s submission that Section 3 ( 2) of the Trade Union Act made the first and second defendants incompetent to register CONUA and NAMDA to coexist and carry out the same functions in the universities as ASUU.</p>, <p>Kanyip said that the Section does not encourage the monopoly of trade unions, but rather the section encourages the existence of other trade unions.</p>, <p>The court said, “The reliefs prayed by the claimant failed, refused and I so hold. I make no order as to cost.”</p>, <p>From facts, the claimant had instituted the suit via an originating summons filed on June 26, 2022.</p>, <p>The claimant’s counsel, Mr Femi Falana SAN, submitted two questions for determination.</p>, <p>Part of the question was whether by Section 4 (2) of the constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended and Section 3 (2) of TUA, the second defendant can register CONUA and NAMDA to carry out the same functions covering the same jurisdiction sphere as the claimant.</p>, <p>The counsel further averred that the second and third defendants re