Air Peace vs unions: Lawyers explain why Federal High Court has final say 

As Air Peace and aviation unions trade accusations over Tuesday’s picketing and the alleged breach of a subsisting court injunction, lawyers have spoken on a more technical but consequential question which is whether the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter or if it is the exclusive preserve of the Industrial Court. 

Air Peace, on Wednesday this week, accused aviation unions of violating a subsisting Federal High Court injunction after Tuesday’s industrial action turned violent, leaving one female employee bleeding and costing the carrier more than N2 billion in damages.

Speaking at a media parley in Lagos, the airline’s Chief Operating Officer, Oluwatoyin Olajide, said the disruption of August 11, 2026 was an act of intimidation against Air Peace staff and passengers and a “flagrant disrespect” of a perpetual court order that unions were legally bound to obey.

Olajide told aviation reporters that the picketing violated a judgment obtained on 26 April 2024 by Air Peace staff against the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), the Trade Union Congress (TUC), the National Union of Air Transport Employees (NUATE), the Inspector-General of Police, and other unions.

That judgment, she said, had declared it unlawful and unconstitutional for the unions to force Air Peace employees into union membership against their will. 

She said the court also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the unions from harassing Air Peace staff at their workplace or anywhere else, and directed police nationwide to enforce compliance.

Olajide said what happened was a flagrant disrespect and disregard of extant laws and the subsisting judgement of the Federal High Court and that the conduct also breached ICAO and Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations (NCAR).

When Daily Sun reached out to the unions to ask why they had gone ahead to picket Air Peace despite the court injunction obtained by two Air Peace staff in 2024, the union source who preferred to remain anonymous said the injunction was a narrow legal move that couldn’t speak for the thousands of workers the union represented, and two names can’t override the collective will of the many.

“Do two staff represent the entire workforce? Union participation is personal. The law is clear and it is that nobody can force anybody, and nobody should stop anybody,” the source said. 

The source said union participation is a personal choice, not something anyone could dictate to another. The source said the law protects that freedom in both directions. 

Two lawyers who spoke to Daily Sun gave their responses saying the April 2024 judgment remains legally binding on the unions.

A lawyer based in Lagos, Felicia Nosike, said she aligns herself with the Federal High Court’s position on two fundamental grounds. 

First, she said the dispute is substantially a fundamental human rights matter, anchored in the constitutional right to freedom of association. That right, she explained, is not one-directional as it guarantees every citizen the freedom to associate, and by extension, the freedom to choose not to associate. 

She said that while workers are entitled to form and join unions, that entitlement cannot be stretched to justify compelling an individual into membership unlawfully. Second, she pointed to the aviation dimension of the case, noting that aviation is a subject matter squarely within the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction. Anosike reiterated that the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of association cuts both ways, it protects both the right to join a union and the right to decline.

She said: “I view the matter substantially as a fundamental human rights issue, especially with regard to the constitutional right to freedom of association. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to associate, and this right necessarily includes the freedom to choose whether or not to belong to an association. A person cannot be compelled to join an association against his or her will. While workers have the right to form and belong to trade unions, that right should not be interpreted in a manner that unlawfully compels an individual to become a member of an association.

“The matter also falls within the field of aviation, which is a subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Consequently, I am of the view that the Federal High Court was properly positioned to determine the issues before it, particularly where the dispute touches directly on aviation operations and the constitutional rights arising therefrom.

“The position might have been different if the dispute were strictly an employer and employee relationship issue, without the additional constitutional and aviation related dimensions. In such circumstances, the appropriate legal framework and jurisdiction could be different( National industrial court)

The Constitution makes provision for freedom of association, and that freedom must work both ways. Just as an individual has the right to associate, there must also be respect for the individual’s right not to be compelled to belong to an association where the law does not expressly provide otherwise.

“Ultimately, if any party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court, the proper course of action is to exercise the right of appeal and allow the appellate courts to pronounce on the legal issues involved.”

Another lawyer based in Lagos, John Okoro, told Daily Sun that the general rule is that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction over core labour matters, which fall instead under the National Industrial Court. But he stressed that a case could raise constitutional fundamental human rights questions and it was on that basis that the Federal High Court could properly assume jurisdiction over the Air Peace dispute. Okoro said that had the court genuinely lacked jurisdiction, the unions’ own lawyers would have challenged it at the time. The absence of any such jurisdictional challenge, he said, reinforces the fact that the Federal High Court was within its authority to hear and determine the matter.

He said: “The Federal High Court can assume jurisdiction, which is when it comes to constitutional fundamental human rights, though it does not have jurisdiction over core labor matters. It is only the National Industrial Court that has that jurisdiction.

“The issue raised in the case between Air Peace staff and the unions border on fundamental human rights, so that means the Federal High Court can assume jurisdiction. If the Federal High Court did not have that jurisdiction, the lawyers would have challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter. But because it borders on constitutional fundamental human rights, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.”