Since the war on Iran with a joint US-Israeli military strikes on February 28, 2026, the economic conditions of the world have been negatively impacted. For instance, the effects of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran where about 20% of world goods and services pass through, have been devastating across the world. In particular, the cost of living has risen astronomically across the world, and in response, many governments have adopted some palliative measures to cushion the effects of the hardship.
The cost of fuel for example, has skyrocketed all over the world and transportation became a big issue in many countries. The cost of living crisis therefore engendered violent demonstrations in couple of countries with those in Europe being the worst hit. In Nigeria, many voices (including those of organized labour) have been raised in protest against the high cost of living. Many people repeatedly called on the Federal Government (FG) to cushion the devastating effects of the hardship on the citizens. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) for example had to give the FG an ultimatum to act failing which, it would go on strike in protest against the biting hardship. This is the brief background against which the FG and the NLC met on October 27, 2026 to consider the way forward.
It did not therefore come as a surprise when the FG announced its approval of the N70,000 (Seventy thousand Naira only) monthly transport allowance to public servants for six months. The award which is took effect from November, 2026, will end in April 2027. The award was part of the decisions taken at a conciliation meeting between the FG and the NLC on October 27, 2026 in Abuja.
NLC President, Comrade Joe Ajaero and TUC President, Comrade (Engr.) Festus Osifo
There are also other benefits from that meeting although they did not generate enough public interest like the more inclusive N70,000 transport allowance. Some of the other benefits are (a) approval for the payment of outstanding peculiar allowance arrears (with effective from May 1, 2026); (b) approval for the clearance of 19 months of outstanding allowances to health workers within three months with effect from December, 2026; (c) agreement to constitute a Minimum Wage Negotiation Committee immediately towards the negotiations of a new national minimum wage due in 2027; and (d) resolution of ‘the issue affecting the issuance of circular that will facilitate the payment of hazard allowance to agricultural professional officers in the public sector in Nigeria.’ (See Vanguard, November 2, 2026 among other newspapers).
For the NLC, the application of Herbert Simon’s concept of ‘satisficing’ in his book Administrative Behaviour (1947) was very appropriate in the situation it found itself. The concept of ‘satisficing’ is Herbert Simon’s portmanteau of satisfy and suffice rather than struggling and waiting (perhaps endlessly) for the most optimal or rational choice. Again, for the NLC, this ‘satisficing choice’ would assuage the workers’ immediate and growing dissatisfaction with the increasing hardship in the land.
But this NLC’s ‘satisficing’ approach did not impress a sister labour centre the Trade Union Congress (TUC). Immediately after the announcement of the FG’s approval of the N70,000 transport allowance, the TUC swiftly rejected the offer, and took exception to the NLC’s role in the meeting that led to the offer. First, it said that the TUC was not part of the negotiation that produced the N70,000 transport allowance. Secondly, it rejected the offer on grounds that what the Nigerian workers need is not a temporary wage award but a permanent salary increase with salary of the lowest paid workers pegged at N300,000 per month. Although, TUC’s position is the most optimal option (rather than satisficing option), the problem of searching for an El dorado might make it difficult to achieve, as a bed in hand is worth two in the bush.
The TUC’s discontent over the transport allowance would not ordinarily attract a commentary but for the way the TUC president Comrade Festus Osifo went all out personal against Comrade Joe Ajaero in an issue which was conducted within the framework of the law. Those familiar with negotiations with the FG know that for it to assemble all relevant bodies for such a conciliation meeting, the government meant business against the background of NLC’s ultimatum. For example, apart from the NLC and the Joint National Public Service Negotiating Council (JNPSNC) on the labour side, the government side had in attendance the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF), Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF), Federal Ministry of Justice, Federal Civil Service Commission, National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission, Federal Ministry of Finance, Office of the Accountant General of the Federation, and the Budget Office of the Federation.
One would wonder why the TUC decided not to be part of such an important meeting when it knew that like a broom (too difficult to break), the FG would be constrained to yield to the demands of a united and more powerful organized labour than to a single broom stick (easily breakable) which TUC opted for in waiting for its own separate meeting. From an outsider’s point of view, the TUC president did not act as a team player – an accusation which he incidentally levelled against the NLC president. Again, his accusation ignored the grave injustice which Comrade Ajaero suffered before eventually becoming president. History will not easily forget the fact that Ajaero acted the way he did (which Comrade Osifo was referring to) to make a point regarding the injustice he suffered. Eventually, those who conspired against him learnt the truth the hard way. It seems obvious therefore that there is more to TUC’s discontent to the N70,000 transport allowance than what it presented as its objections which on a face value appear sound. Who for instance would not want a more permanent and sustainable salary increase than a mere palliative that lasts for only six months?
TUC should not be seen as behaving in a manner that would make people to accuse it of subverting the interest of workers. One has not forgotten why and how the TUC was formed in 2005 as a countervailing labour centre that would check the perceived ideological stubbornness of the NLC. Only just recently, the TUC in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) asked its members not to join in a strike called by the NLC on grounds that it was not part of the negotiation where the decision was made. In a Channels Television News of October 9, 2026 (updated), it was reported that the TUC had directed ‘its FCT members to disregard NLC’s indefinite strike order’, saying that ‘it neither participated in the meeting that produced the directive nor endorsed the decision to embark on industrial action.’ (See https://www.channelstv.com/2026/10/09/tuc-directs-fct-members-to-disregard-nlcs-indefinite-strike-order/?utm_source=auto-read-also&utm_medium=web). One may begin to wonder if the new style of TUC is to subvert the NLC. This would remind some of us as to why the TUC was created in the first place. The TUC should know that labour union historians are watching very keenly.
Prof. Obasi, a public policy expert and analyst is formerly of the Department of Public Administration, University of Abuja. Email: nnamdizik@gmail.com; Cell: 07065692668
