Joe Ajaero accuses the TUC of rejecting an agreement it refused to negotiate, while Festus Osifo’s union argues that temporary relief cannot replace higher salaries. Behind the dispute are unanswered questions about public spending, payment transparency and the government’s record on workers’ welfare.
Nigeria’s proposed ₦70,000 monthly transport allowance has exposed a growing divide within organised labour, raising questions that go beyond the disagreement between the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC).
The immediate dispute is over who negotiated the Federal Government’s latest relief package. The deeper issue is whether another temporary payment can restore workers’ purchasing power when rising living costs and unresolved welfare agreements continue to strain household budgets.
The government reached the six-month agreement with the NLC on Tuesday, 27 October 2026. The TUC rejected the proposal the following day, demanding an immediate salary increase instead.
On Thursday, NLC President Joe Ajaero challenged that opposition, arguing that the TUC had deliberately distanced itself from negotiations before criticising the outcome.
But the disagreement also exposes a more consequential test for the government: whether it can demonstrate that the money will reach eligible workers, that previous commitments will be honoured and that temporary financial relief will lead to a sustainable wage policy. Punch Newspapers+2
A labour dispute before the first payment
Speaking on Channels Television’s Morning Brief on Thursday, Ajaero questioned why the TUC would oppose an arrangement it had neither negotiated nor signed.
“Why is TUC challenging what was gotten for the workers when we stated clearly that NLC was acting alone?” he asked.
He added: “The agreement was not signed by TUC, and you don’t kick against something that you didn’t negotiate, you never asked for.”
Ajaero argued that the TUC could have used its own negotiations to seek a more generous allowance rather than reject the NLC’s agreement.
“I would have preferred a situation whereby if NLC was asking for one naira, TUC would be asking for 10 naira, and probably the government would harmonise it,” he said.
The NLC president traced the disagreement to differences over when negotiations for a new national minimum wage should begin.
According to Ajaero, the dispute intensified after the TUC leadership reportedly maintained that the minimum wage would be due for negotiation in August 2027. The NLC disagreed and proceeded with its own engagement with the government.
Ajaero said the TUC had also objected when media reports suggested that both labour centres were participating in the same negotiations.
“When we started the first meeting, the media reported that NLC and TUC had a meeting. They threatened us and said they are not part of it,” he said.
He maintained that the NLC subsequently clarified its position.
“We came out with a statement that NLC is on this alone; we are not with TUC. So I would be surprised why TUC would be challenging what was gotten for the workers,” he added. Punch Newspapers
Ajaero’s argument is straightforward: the NLC negotiated the deal and should be judged on what it secured.
The TUC’s counterargument, however, is that a deal can provide some immediate relief without being the most effective solution to workers’ economic problems.
That distinction is central to understanding the dispute.
What does the ₦70,000 allowance actually promise?
Under the agreement reached between the Federal Government and the NLC, the transport intervention is scheduled to begin in November 2026 and continue for six months.
At ₦70,000 per month, a worker who qualifies for every payment would receive ₦420,000 over the entire period.
That is a substantial temporary payment for a low-income household. It is not, however, an increase in basic salary or a permanent adjustment to the national minimum wage.
The distinction matters because the payment is designed to cushion workers against economic hardship rather than permanently alter their earnings.
There are also important questions about how the arrangement will operate.
The reported memorandum of understanding does not specify the exact payment dates or fully detail the administrative arrangements for disbursement. Its wording refers to payments across all levels, but public reporting has not established a definitive beneficiary count or a complete explanation of the scheme’s coverage. Punch Newspapers+1
A separate analysis by PUNCH estimates that the six-month intervention could cost approximately ₦465.7 billion if all 1,108,800 employee records on the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System as of July 2026 qualify.
The estimate assumes that every record represents an eligible beneficiary. The actual cost will depend on the verified number of qualifying workers and the final payment arrangements. It should therefore not be mistaken for an officially confirmed expenditure figure. Punch Newspapers
Even with that qualification, the estimate raises important questions about public financial management.
Which workers will qualify? How will duplicate, inactive or otherwise ineligible payroll records be excluded? Will the government publish a verified beneficiary count and reconcile the payments with its payroll records?
These are not arguments against helping workers. They are basic accountability questions for a major public expenditure.
The government needs to establish that the intervention is delivered as promised, rather than allowing the announcement itself to become the principal measure of success.
Why the TUC wants salaries raised instead
The TUC, led by President Festus Osifo, argues that temporary wage awards have failed to provide reliable and far-reaching relief.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, 28 October, and signed by Osifo and Secretary-General N.A. Toro, the congress called for an immediate salary increase, arguing that the government did not need to wait for another national minimum wage negotiation before improving workers’ pay.
The union said the government could raise the salary of the lowest-paid worker to ₦300,000 from the current ₦70,000 minimum wage and make the appropriate consequential adjustments across salary grades.
That figure is the TUC’s proposal, not an approved government salary or an existing statutory entitlement.
Its argument is that salary increases provide a more dependable basis for household budgeting than temporary interventions that end after a fixed period.
The union also challenged the government’s previous record on wage awards.
According to the TUC, the provisional wage award agreed in October 2023 was not implemented consistently. It said some workers remained owed one or two months’ payments, while others received nothing.
“How do we go back to the same wage award that never benefited all workers? How can workers be expected to trust fresh promises when previous obligations remain outstanding?” the congress asked.
The TUC also claimed that wage awards were not implemented in more than 80 per cent of states and in the informal sector. That is the union’s assertion and would require independent verification to establish the full extent of the shortfall.
Its central criticism is nevertheless clear: another relief package cannot be judged solely by the amount announced. The government’s ability to pay the right beneficiaries on time is equally important. Channels Television+1
A significant discrepancy in the previous wage award
The dispute also highlights why the details of earlier agreements matter.
In its reported account of the 2023 wage award, the TUC referred to some recipients receiving a ₦40,000 award. But the Federal Government’s memorandum of understanding of 2 October 2023 set the provisional wage award for federal workers at ₦35,000 per month for six months, pending the enactment of a new national minimum wage. Fed Ministry of Info & Nat Orientation+1
The discrepancy needs clarification.
It does not, by itself, disprove the TUC’s separate allegation that some workers experienced delayed payments or did not receive all their entitlements. It does mean that the amounts cited in public arguments should be reconciled with the signed agreements and actual payroll records.
A proper review would establish the number of eligible workers, the number paid, the amounts received and any outstanding balances.
Without those records, workers and taxpayers are left to judge competing claims without a complete picture of what happened.
The same scrutiny should apply to the new transport allowance. The government can strengthen confidence in the arrangement by publishing clear eligibility rules, a payment schedule and regular implementation updates.
The minimum-wage law and the dispute over timing
Ajaero also questioned the suggestion that minimum-wage negotiations should wait until August 2027.
Nigeria’s National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Act 2024 raised the statutory minimum wage to ₦70,000 and shortened the minimum-wage review cycle from five years to three years.
The next review therefore falls in 2027. But the review timetable does not, in itself, answer every question about when preparatory discussions or immediate salary adjustments can begin. Law Nigeria+1
Ajaero argued that any general wage adjustment must follow an established process.
“Does the government dash wage increase? There must be a process put in place,” he said.
The TUC’s position is different. It contends that government can increase salaries without waiting for a fresh national minimum wage agreement because there is no legal ceiling preventing employers from paying above the statutory minimum.
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A formal national minimum wage negotiation remains distinct from a government decision to increase salaries. The TUC is demanding an immediate pay rise, while Ajaero is emphasising the need for a process to negotiate a broader wage arrangement.
The latest agreement itself acknowledges the unresolved issue. Although the government and NLC agreed that a Minimum Wage Negotiation Committee should be constituted and begin work immediately, they did not agree on the effective date for implementing a new national minimum wage. Punch Newspapers
The critical question is whether that committee will begin substantive negotiations promptly or become another mechanism through which difficult decisions are deferred.
The health workers’ dispute is another test of credibility
The TUC’s opposition is also linked to an outstanding agreement concerning members of the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU).
The congress accused the Federal Government of failing to implement an agreement on adjustments to the Consolidated Health Salary Structure, known as CONHESS, seven months after the settlement.
It said JOHESU suspended its prolonged industrial action in good faith after an agreement was reached, but the government had yet to fulfil its obligations on the adjustment.
“Health workers must not be expected to continue delivering essential services while commitments made to them remain unfulfilled,” the TUC said.
The new agreement between the government and NLC contains provisions relevant to this wider dispute. These include a commitment to clear 19 months of health workers’ allowance arrears within three months, beginning in December 2026, and a timetable to update the cost implications of the CONHESS adjustment.
Those commitments are steps towards addressing outstanding issues, but a promise to complete an assessment or clear arrears is not proof that the obligations have been fully discharged. Channels Television+1
For affected health workers, the measure of progress will be whether the money arrives and the outstanding adjustment is implemented.
For the government, the handling of these obligations will influence how workers assess the credibility of future wage agreements.
What workers need to see next
The disagreement between the NLC and TUC is unlikely to be resolved simply by deciding which union has the stronger claim to represent workers in the latest negotiations.
Ajaero is entitled to argue that his union negotiated independently and that the TUC did not sign the deal. The TUC, in turn, can argue that the proposed intervention is insufficient to address the scale of workers’ economic hardship.
The two arguments concern different questions: the legitimacy of the negotiating process and the adequacy of the outcome.
For workers, the immediate priority is more practical.
The government needs to clarify who is covered by the transport allowance, publish the applicable payment arrangements and ensure that eligible workers receive the money as scheduled. It should also provide a transparent account of outstanding wage-award obligations and progress on the agreements affecting health workers.
The minimum-wage committee must begin work, while the government should provide a clear timetable for the decisions that remain unresolved.
The TUC and NLC also face a test of their own. Their competition should not leave workers with rival statements but no clear way to establish which commitments have been fulfilled.
Nigeria’s ₦70,000 transport intervention may provide meaningful relief over the coming six months. Its lasting value, however, will depend on whether it is delivered transparently and accompanied by progress towards more reliable pay.
The immediate dispute is about who negotiated the allowance. The more important test is whether workers can count on the promises that follow.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.