By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), the nation’s largest labour union, has directed workers in states that have not fully implemented the 2024 National Minimum Wage Act to mark May Day 2026 on the streets, suspending all indoor or official celebrations.

President Bola Tinubu signed the new minimum wage bill into law on July 29, 2024, raising the national minimum wage from N30,000 to N70,000. The amendment to the Minimum Wage Act of 2019 followed tripartite negotiations between the government, labour unions, and the private sector.

May Day, observed annually on May 1, honours workers and labour movements worldwide. This year, the NLC is calling for both a reflection on the state of workers’ rights and a celebration of the collective efforts that continue to build the wealth of nations.

In a statement signed on Friday by its General Secretary, Emmanuel Ugboaja, the union condemned several state governments for persistently violating the 2024 National Minimum Wage Act.

It accused them of refusing to implement key provisions, including consequential adjustments for senior workers, regular and timely payment of the new wage, and the extension of coverage to local government staff, primary school teachers, and health workers. The NLC described these violations as not only a breach of the law but an assault on the dignity of Nigerian workers.

Consequently, the NLC directed all its State Councils in jurisdictions where full implementation has not been achieved to ensure that no May Day ceremonies take place inside government houses, banquet halls, or any enclosed venue hosted by or in collaboration with defaulting state governments. All official receptions have been suspended.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The leadership crisis engulfing the African Democratic Congress (ADC) intensified Friday as state chairmen of the party announced plans to take control of the opposition party’s national structure, citing the electoral commission’s recent decision to derecognise the Senator David Mark-led National Working Committee.

Temitope Ogga, Chairman of the ADC state chairmen and also the Kogi State Chairman of the party, disclosed the move in an interview with Saturday PUNCH, describing it as necessary to prevent a leadership vacuum and protect the party’s structure ahead of the 2027 general election.

Ogga said the National Executive Committee — comprising the state chairmen — will meet on Tuesday to select a Caretaker Committee that will steer the party’s affairs while legal disputes are resolved.

“After the NWC, we are the next highest decision-making organ of the party,” Ogga stated. “We are the NEC, all the state chairmen are members of the NEC, and it is the most powerful organ of the party.”

The crisis follows the Independent National Electoral Commission’s decision on Wednesday to remove the names of the ADC’s NWC — led by Mark — from its official portal, complying with a Court of Appeal order. INEC said it would maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the determination of a substantive suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The ruling stems from a protracted leadership battle within the ADC, with rival factions led by Nafiu Bala Gombe and Senator David Mark both claiming authority over the party’s national structure.

Ogga insisted the state chairmen are legally positioned to assume leadership. “Now that the court has said that it does not recognise the NWC as the party authority, they did not disband the state chairmen and their executives, so we are the next in line to take over the party, according to the party’s constitution.”

He added that the party would formally notify INEC of the transition. “The committee will be in acting capacity, and we are going to write INEC to inform them of this new development. We will submit the names of the members of the committee to INEC after our meeting on Tuesday.”

Two Nigerian lawyers, Inibehe Effiong and Bodunde Opeyemi, have offered detailed legal explanations of the ongoing leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC), pointing to procedural decisions and binding court rulings as the root of the dispute.

Their interventions come amid growing public debate over the role of the electoral commission and speculation about possible political interference.

Mr Effiong, a public interest and human rights lawyer, criticised the legal approach taken by the faction led by former Senate President David Mark, describing it as procedurally questionable.
He said the Federal High Court did not issue any restraining order against the leadership, but instead directed that all parties be put on notice — a standard legal step requiring both sides to present their arguments.

According to him, the appropriate response would have been to contest the case at the trial court rather than file an interlocutory appeal.
“It became a motion on notice. They should have filed processes in opposition,” he said, adding that the decision to appeal at that stage was “unusual” and “untidy”.

He warned that pursuing further appeals could complicate the matter further instead of resolving it.

*Court ruling shapes situation*

Legal practitioner Mr Opeyemi traced the dispute to a leadership contest that followed a party meeting in July 2025, which produced a new executive.

The situation escalated when a party official challenged the process in court, asking the Federal High Court to stop both the new leadership and the electoral body from recognising the outcome.
While the court declined to grant an interim order, the case later reached the Court of Appeal.

In March 2026, the appellate court directed all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum — meaning the situation must remain as it was before the case was filed.
Mr Opeyemi said this order is clear and binding.

“It requires a strict preservation of the state of affairs before the dispute,” he explained, adding that no party is allowed to take actions that could influence the outcome of the case.

Why the electoral body acted
The lawyers say this court order explains the position taken by the electoral commission, which has declined to recognise any faction of the party.

According to Mr Opeyemi, the commission is legally bound to comply with the directive and cannot take sides while the case is still before the court.
He said any attempt to recognise a leadership or engage with party activities under dispute could amount to a violation of a valid court order.

*Focus on internal legal process*

Both lawyers suggest that the situation is the result of internal disagreements and legal strategy within the party.
Their analysis indicates that the current impasse is being shaped by court processes rather than actions from outside the party.

The dispute is expected to remain unresolved until the Federal High Court delivers a final judgment on the substantive case.