Working People United, led by National Coordinator-General Prince Akporeha Williams and General Secretary Oladapo Sunday Moses, on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, rejected an alleged directive by some Nigeria Labour Congress officials asking affiliated union leaders to boycott the inauguration of the movement’s Lagos State chapter.

WoPU described the reported instruction as undemocratic and said it amounted to an attempt to restrict workers’ freedom of association and political participation.

Also read: Air Peace faces N2bn loss after union disruption

The organisation said its position was grounded in Section 40 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which protects the right to assemble and associate freely, including membership of political parties, trade unions and other associations formed to protect members’ interests.

WoPU said the alleged circular had circulated on social media and reportedly instructed presidents and general secretaries of NLC-affiliated unions to stay away from the Lagos inauguration.

The movement described the alleged directive as “dictatorial” and argued that individual workers should not be compelled to adopt a particular political position or prevented from participating in an organisation of their choice.

“No organisation, no matter how powerful, has the right to tell Nigerian workers which associations they can join,” WoPU said.

The movement also rejected the suggestion that its activities amounted to an attempt to create a parallel labour organisation.

WoPU said it brings together people from both formal and informal sectors, including artisans, traders, professionals and other working Nigerians, and focuses on political and civic participation rather than replacing established labour unions.

WoPU has openly declared support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s bid for re-election in 2027, alongside what it described as progressive-minded candidates.

The organisation said that political position reflected the choices of its members and should not be used to restrict their participation in other civic or labour activities.

The dispute touches on a more complicated legal question than freedom of association alone.

Section 40 provides broad constitutional protection for association, but that protection operates within Nigeria’s wider legal framework governing trade unions and political activity.

The Trade Unions Act, for example, restricts the use of trade-union funds for political objectives, including contributions to political parties and expenses connected with candidates for political office.

That distinction is important because the constitutional right of an individual worker to associate politically is not necessarily the same as the authority of a registered trade union to use its institutional structures or funds for political purposes.

WoPU also invoked International Labour Organisation standards, citing Conventions 87 and 98 on freedom of association, the right to organise and collective bargaining.

Nigeria ratified both conventions on October 17, 1960, and the ILO currently lists both as being in force. (Normlex)

Convention No. 87 concerns freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, while Convention No. 98 addresses the right to organise and collective bargaining.

Their existence in Nigeria’s legal framework reinforces the broader principle that workers should be able to organise and participate in representative structures, subject to applicable national law.

However, the existence of those protections does not by itself establish WoPU’s claim that an alleged NLC instruction would constitute a legal violation.

The nature of the reported directive, who issued it, whether it was formally authorised by the NLC and whether it was directed at unions as institutions or individual workers would all be relevant to any legal assessment.

The NLC has not been quoted in the statement supplied by WoPU as confirming the alleged directive, and no independent copy of the circular has been established in the material reviewed for this report.

The allegations should therefore be understood as WoPU’s account unless the NLC provides its own response.

The dispute also reflects a broader political tension within organised labour.

The NLC has historically played a significant role in national political and economic debates, particularly on issues affecting wages, living costs, workers’ welfare and government policy.

WoPU, meanwhile, is seeking to mobilise working Nigerians around an explicitly political objective ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Its support for Tinubu places the movement on a different political footing from labour figures and groups that have criticised aspects of the Federal Government’s policies.

The organisation said it would continue to defend what it considers the political rights of working people and called on the NLC to withdraw the alleged boycott instruction.

WoPU also expressed solidarity with its Lagos State Chapter Chairperson, Funmi Sessi, and said any attempt to intimidate or malign her because of her association with the movement would be resisted through lawful means.

The movement urged workers to exercise their rights peacefully and responsibly and called on security agencies and government authorities to protect citizens from harassment or intimidation.

For now, the central issue remains whether the reported boycott instruction was formally issued by an authorised NLC body and, if so, what precisely it required affiliated unions and their members to do.

That distinction could prove important in separating an internal labour directive from an attempt to restrict individual political association.

Also read: Air Peace faces N2bn loss after union disruption

WoPU nevertheless says it will not retreat from its political advocacy, declaring that its stated mission is to promote the unity, productivity and progress of Nigerian working people.