The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Enugu Judicial Division, has declared the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) illegal, unconstitutional, null and void as it applies to labour and employment disputes.
The decision was delivered by Hon. Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe, who held that the NICN lacks jurisdiction to apply POPA in matters over which it has exclusive constitutional authority, particularly employment, labour relations and workplace disputes.
Justice Arowosegbe ruled that once the Court’s jurisdiction is activated under Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the NICN cannot be fettered by general procedural statutes such as POPA, especially where such statutes impose conditions precedent to the institution of actions.
According to the Court, POPA is a general statute designed to protect public officers and authorities against actions from the public at large, and not a law relating to labour, employment or industrial relations. As such, it falls outside the category of statutes the NICN is constitutionally empowered to interpret and apply under Section 254C(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Justice Arowosegbe further held that the absolute limitation period of three months prescribed by Section 2(a) of POPA, without any discretion for extension in deserving cases, is inconsistent with international labour standards and Nigerian labour statutes.
The Court found that the restriction offends Article 8(3) of ILO Convention 158 and Sections 4–14 of the Trade Disputes Act, stressing that labour law, which deals with socio-economic rights, cannot be shackled by rigid technicalities such as pre-action notices and limitation traps.
“Speed, efficiency and access to justice are the very raison d’être of industrial courts all over the world,” the Judge said, adding that labour adjudication must prioritise fairness over procedural hurdles.
Background of the Case
The claimant, Dr. Eze, instituted the action challenging the suspension and termination of his appointment by Federal Polytechnic Ohodo and three others, seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
In response, the defendants raised preliminary objections, arguing that the suit was statute-barred under POPA, that no pre-action notice was issued, and that the action was improperly constituted. They relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Anolam v. FUTO (2025) to contend that POPA applies to public employment.
The defendants also argued that Dr. Eze’s appointment was terminated on 8 January 2025, while the suit was filed on 26 June 2025, outside the three-month limitation period.
Dr. Eze opposed the objections, arguing that POPA does not apply to contracts of public employment and that the authorities cited were inapplicable to actions before the NICN under the Third Alteration Act.
Court’s Findings
In a consolidated ruling, Justice Arowosegbe held that the suit was not statute-barred, explaining that the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the defendants arose before the Third Alteration Act and were not decided within the jurisdiction of the NICN.
The Court noted that those decisions did not consider the effect of:
- Section 254C(1)(b), (f)–(h) & (2) of the Constitution
- The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act
- Nigeria’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Justice Arowosegbe emphasised that modern employment law in Nigeria is sui generis, anchored on constitutional and international labour standards, and therefore not subject to general procedural statutes like POPA.
He added that the use of negotiations to delay an employee from filing an action, only to later rely on POPA, amounts to unfair labour practice and breach of good faith, rendering POPA unconstitutional in employment disputes.
The Court further held that POPA is incompatible with Section 12(2)(a) of the National Industrial Court Act (NICA), which empowers the NICN to regulate its own procedure, subject only to the Constitution, the NICA and its Rules.
Injunction Granted
On the claimant’s application, the Court also granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from taking any steps arising from the publication made on 21 July 2025 concerning the office of the Bursar of the Federal Polytechnic Ohodo, pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The Court awarded ₦300,000 costs against the defendants and adjourned the matter for hearing on the merits.