Crisis Hits PENGASSAN NNPC Branch As Members Ask Court To Nullify July Election Over Expired Tenure | Sahara Reporters
They are also seeking orders restraining the officials declared winners from parading themselves as duly elected executives and directing the union to constitute a caretaker committee to organise a fresh election.
A leadership crisis has erupted in 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 concerned members asking the National Industrial Court in Abuja to nullify a July 2026 election they allege was conducted after the tenure of the previous executive had expired.
The claimants, who filed the suit on behalf of concerned members of the NTL-NSL branch, are challenging the process that produced a new branch executive committee, arguing that it violated provisions of PENGASSAN’s constitution and disenfranchised members.
They are also seeking orders restraining the officials declared winners from parading themselves as duly elected executives and directing the union to constitute a caretaker committee to organise a fresh election.
At the centre of the dispute is the tenure of the branch executive elected on June 22, 2023, and the procedure adopted for the July 2026 election.
According to the claimants, the 2023 executive, led by Amaoge Chukwudi as chairman, was elected for a three-year tenure which expired on June 22, 2026.
They relied on Rule 20.1 of the PENGASSAN 2022 Constitution and documents relating to the 2023 election to support their position.
The claimants said members had raised concerns about the approaching expiration of the executive’s tenure several weeks before June 22, urging the outgoing leadership to commence a transition process and communicate a roadmap for the election.
At an emergency congress on May 7, 2026, the issue was reportedly raised under Any Other Business, with the chairman responding that “plans were underway.”
The claimants, however, alleged that no concrete process followed the assurance.
They said members were not formally informed of an election timetable, positions to be contested, screening criteria, nomination procedures, delegate accreditation or electoral guidelines required under the union’s 2025 Constitution.
The dispute escalated on July 20, when concerned members submitted an urgent petition to PENGASSAN’s Central Working Committee through the General Secretary.
The petition, titled “Urgent Petition Against Unconstitutional Electoral Conduct And Disenfranchisement Of Members – NNPC Trading Limited & NNPC Shipping & Logistics Limited Branch”, accused the outgoing leadership of allegedly undermining internal democracy.
The petitioners described the situation as involving “grave constitutional urgency” and alleged “deliberate and systematic subversion of internal democracy” by officials whose tenure had expired.
They alleged that the officials were using authority they no longer lawfully possessed “to determine the conditions of their own succession.”
A major point of disagreement was the decision to conduct the election through a Delegates’ Conference rather than a congress involving all branch members.
The petitioners relied on Rule 8.3.2 of the PENGASSAN 2025 Constitution, which provides that the “Branch” may choose either a Quadrennial Conference of all members or a Delegates’ Conference.
They argued that the decision belonged to the branch collectively, rather than the Branch Executive Council or Branch Executive Committee.
They also alleged that decisions concerning the electoral process were made after June 22, when the outgoing executive’s tenure had expired.
The petitioners further challenged the selection of additional delegates, arguing that Section 8.3.3 of the 2025 Constitution required delegates to be nominated and accredited in accordance with applicable by-laws and guidelines approved by the National Secretariat.
They alleged that no such framework was properly presented or communicated to members.
Among other demands, they asked the CWC to recognise the expiration of the outgoing executive’s tenure, nullify the purported appointment of additional delegates, suspend the July election, appoint an independent Returning Officer and issue a formal election timetable.
They also called for an investigation into the conduct of the outgoing officials over alleged inaction, post-tenure conduct and unconstitutional selection of delegates.
“This petition is not about who wins an election. It is about whether the Constitution will govern our Union or whether expediency will,” they stated.
They added: “In PENGASSAN, no individual is greater than the Constitution, no office is greater than the membership, and no electoral process can be considered legitimate unless members can clearly see that it is fair.”
Despite the complaints, the disputed election proceeded on July 21, producing the officials listed as defendants in the suit.
The claimants are asking the court to declare the election null and void, arguing that it was conducted after the previous executive’s tenure had expired and through a process they say was not authorised by the branch Congress.
The suit specifically challenges a July 13 letter signed by Chukwudi and titled “REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE 1ST QUADRENNIAL BRANCH DELEGATES’ ELECTION,” which was addressed to the PENGASSAN General Secretary.
The claimants argue that Chukwudi’s tenure had already expired by the time he made the request and that he therefore lacked constitutional authority to make decisions concerning the branch’s electoral process.
They further allege that NTL-NSL members had not met or decided whether their election should be conducted through a Quadrennial Conference or Delegates’ Conference before the request was made.
The controversy was further deepened by an August 5 petition filed by four members of the former branch executive.
The petition alleged the “unconstitutional, discriminatory and arbitrary exclusion” of four duly elected NTL/NSL Branch Executive Council members from the Delegates’ Conference.
The four said they had not been suspended, removed or sanctioned and alleged they were the only BEC members who supported conducting the election through Congress rather than a Delegates’ Conference.
They claimed that after taking that position, they were excluded from the electioneering process and prevented from participating in the election.
According to them, they arrived at the PENGASSAN Head Office Annex in Jahi, Abuja, on July 21 for the Delegates’ Conference but were denied entry.
They alleged that the entrance gate was locked and security personnel refused them access without providing a written explanation or constitutional basis.
They further alleged that while the four were kept outside, another BEC member, Bwaltam Musa, was allowed into the venue.
The petitioners relied on Section 8.3.3 of the PENGASSAN Constitution, which they quoted as stating that the conference “shall be composed of…all members of the Branch Executive Council (BEC).”
They argued that the provision did not permit organisers to selectively exclude duly elected BEC members, describing their exclusion as “abuse of administrative authority” and “suppression of dissent.”
The claimants are now asking the National Industrial Court to determine whether the branch executive’s tenure expired on June 22 and whether the officials retained constitutional authority to act after that date.
They also want the court to determine whether the branch itself, rather than the outgoing BEC or BECOM, was responsible for deciding the mode of election under Rule 8.3.2 of the 2025 Constitution.
Among the reliefs sought is a declaration that the July 21 election was null and void for allegedly violating PENGASSAN’s constitution and democratic procedures.
The claimants are also seeking an injunction restraining the newly declared executives from parading themselves as duly elected officials and an order restraining PENGASSAN from taking disciplinary action against them or other concerned members over their petitions and complaints.
They further want the National Secretariat to constitute a caretaker committee to organise a fresh branch election.
While PENGASSAN’s Central Working Committee reportedly described an earlier petition as frivolous and said there was no constitutional infraction, the claimants have now asked the court to determine the legality of the disputed process.
The case therefore places before the court broader questions concerning tenure, electoral procedures, delegate conferences and members’ rights to participate in choosing their union leaders.