They took money from teachers’ pockets for the End-Well Scheme, then took the fight out of them too, asking those with the right to march to stand down.
When the Nigeria Labour Congress, Rivers State Council, directed teachers to suspend their planned protest over unauthorized salary deductions, it was framed as an act of peacemaking. But peace for whom?
Let’s be clear about the law: Nigerian teachers did not need anyone’s permission to protest. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, and since the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling in IGP v. ANPP struck down police permit requirements in 2007, that right has stood unshaken by the procedural gatekeeping.
The NLC’s directive was not a legal order. It was a choice, one made on behalf of teachers who had already endured deductions for June and August, with no assurance the pattern wouldn’t continue.
To be fair, the NLC’s reasoning deserves a hearing. Labour leadership may genuinely have calculated that standing down preserves goodwill at the negotiating table, and that a disruptive protest during the Nigeria Bar Association’s conference in Port Harcourt could have hardened positions rather than softened them.
Strategic patience is sometimes the wiser path to a durable resolution, and NLC leaders are not obligated to choose confrontation simply because they are entitled to it.
But goodwill is not owed only to institutions and government officials watching from a conference hall. It is owed to teachers who have already been shorted twice, with a third deduction cycle waiting. The suspension addressed the protest, not the reason for the complaint. Nothing was refunded. Nothing was guaranteed.
If the NLC’s gamble is genuine, it must now produce results, quickly and publicly. Rivers State teachers were asked to trust a process; that trust must be repaid with a solution, not another delay dressed up as negotiation.
The right to protest is not a bargaining chip. It is a constitutional guarantee. When labour leaders trade it away, even with good intentions, they owe the workers a clear account of what was gained in return.
