FG Might Consider Out-Of-Court Settlement With ASUU

2 mins read

The Academic Staff Union of Universities may be the subject of an out-of-court settlement, according to GIOTV, just days after the Federal Government brought the union before the National Industrial Court.

ASUU’s president, Professor Emmanuel Osodeke, announced the union’s seven-month strike on February 14, 2022, at the University of Lagos. The government’s refusal to uphold earlier agreements negotiated with the union, according to the union, forced it to go on strike.

The source noted that the reason why the striking lecturers were dragged to court was because of their failure to return to work despite the efforts made by the government.

The source said, “We may consider an out-of-court settlement if they agree to return to work. The reason we dragged them to court initially was because they refused our pleas to return to work. We met with them several times and made moves for reconciliation but they refused. The reason for going to court is for the court to compel them to go back to work. If they agree to resume, there is no need going ahead with the suit.”

Suit continues Monday

The National Industrial Court on Friday adjourned till Monday, September 19, hearing in the suit filed by the Federal Government challenging the ongoing strike by ASUU.

At the resumed sitting on Friday, counsel for the Federal Government, James Igwe (SAN), asked the court to give the suit an accelerated hearing due to the urgency of the matter to enable the students to return to school.

He requested the court to direct ASUU to resume work pending the determination of the suit. But the counsel for ASUU, Femi Falana (SAN), opposed the request, stating that it would amount to determining the substantive suit.

Igwe told the court that since the matter was already in court, it would be proper for the strike to be called off pending the determination of the suit.

Counsel for ASUU, Femi Falana (SAN), argued that the matter was adjourned to Friday for further mention and not for hearing. He said he had been served with the Federal Government’s motion for interlocutory injunction.

The judge said it was the issue for determination and therefore could not be resolved before hearing.