KEY POINTS
- PENGASSAN NTL-NSL members want the National Industrial Court to nullify the July 21, 2026 branch election.
- They allege the previous executive’s three-year tenure expired on June 22 and that it lacked authority to organise the election afterwards.
- The claimants want a caretaker committee appointed to conduct a fresh election under PENGASSAN’s constitution.
A leadership crisis has erupted within the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria, PENGASSAN, branch covering NNPC Trading Limited (NTL) and NNPC Shipping and Logistics Limited (NSL), with members challenging the validity of the branch’s July 2026 election before the National Industrial Court in Abuja.
The dispute centres on allegations that the previous branch executive committee continued to exercise authority after its three-year tenure expired and proceeded to organise an election through a delegates’ conference without securing what aggrieved members say was the required approval of the wider branch membership.
The claimants are asking the court to invalidate the election, restrain the officials declared winners from presenting themselves as legitimately elected executives, and order PENGASSAN to establish a caretaker committee to conduct a fresh and constitutionally compliant election.
At the heart of the case is the tenure of the branch executive elected on June 22, 2023, and led by Amaoge Chukwudi as chairman.
According to the claimants, the executive was elected for a three-year term under Rule 20.1 of the PENGASSAN 2022 Constitution. They maintain that the tenure consequently ended on June 22, 2026.
They argue that concerns over the approaching expiration date had been raised by members weeks before the deadline, with calls for the leadership to begin preparations for a transition and provide members with a clear timetable for the election of new officers.
The issue was reportedly raised at an emergency congress on May 7, 2026, during the “Any Other Business” segment. The chairman was said to have assured members that preparations were underway.
However, the claimants allege that the assurance was not followed by a transparent electoral process.
Members Allege Lack of Electoral Roadmap
The aggrieved members contend that no formal election timetable or comprehensive guidelines were communicated before the previous executive’s tenure expired.
According to them, members were not properly informed about the positions to be contested, screening requirements, nomination procedures, delegate accreditation arrangements or other electoral guidelines they believe were required under PENGASSAN’s 2025 Constitution.
They argue that the absence of such information deprived members of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the selection of their representatives.
The dispute became more pronounced after concerned members submitted an urgent petition to PENGASSAN’s Central Working Committee through the General Secretary on July 20.
In the petition, they accused the outgoing leadership of undermining internal democracy and attempting to influence the conditions under which its successors would be selected.
The petitioners stressed that their objection was not about which candidates would win the election but about whether the process complied with the union’s constitution.
One of the most significant issues before the court is the decision to conduct the election through a Delegates’ Conference rather than a congress involving all members of the branch.
The claimants rely on Rule 8.3.2 of the PENGASSAN 2025 Constitution, which provides for the branch to choose between a Quadrennial Conference of all members and a Delegates’ Conference.
They argue that the power to determine which option should be adopted rests with the branch collectively and not solely with the Branch Executive Council or Branch Executive Committee.
The claimants further allege that the decision to proceed with the delegates’ system was made after the previous executive’s tenure had already expired.
They are therefore asking the court to determine whether the outgoing officials had any constitutional authority to take decisions relating to the election after June 22.
