JUSUN Resumes Indefinite Strike in Kaduna Over Unfulfilled Agreements

The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), Kaduna State Chapter, has reactivated an indefinite industrial action, accusing the state government of reneging on mutually agreed terms. This escalation follows a series of negotiations and postponed actions, highlighting deep-seated issues in public sector labor relations and the operational autonomy of the judiciary in Nigeria. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the strike, its background, the key points of contention, and its potential impact on the justice system and citizens of Kaduna State.

Introduction: A Renewed Clash Between Labor and Government

The resumption of the indefinite strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) in Kaduna State marks a critical juncture in the often-tense relationship between civil servant unions and state governments in Nigeria. Announced in a communiqué dated February 12, 2026, and signed by the Branch Chairman, Auwalu Sarki, and Assistant Secretary, Nasir Haroun, the union declared that prolonged engagements and repeated assurances from the Kaduna State Executive Council had proven hollow. This action is not an isolated incident but the culmination of a protracted negotiation process that began with a demand letter in September 2025, an ultimatum in October 2025, and an initial strike notice in late October 2025, which was subsequently suspended to foster dialogue. The central grievance remains the non-implementation of agreements reached during mediated discussions involving the national JUSUN body, the Kaduna State Government, and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). This strike directly targets the operational efficiency and financial autonomy of the judiciary in the state, a cornerstone of democratic governance.

Key Points: The Core of the JUSUN Kaduna Strike

To immediately grasp the situation, here are the essential facts of the JUSUN strike in Kaduna:

• Union: Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), Kaduna State Branch.
• Action: Resumption of an indefinite strike (industrial action).
• Primary Cause: Alleged failure of the Kaduna State Government to implement agreements reached after months of negotiation.
• Timeline: Demand letter (Sept 1, 2025), Ultimatum (Oct 9, 2025), Initial Strike Notice (Oct 23, 2025), Suspension (Oct 31, 2025), Resumption (Feb 12, 2026).
• Mediators: National JUSUN, Kaduna State Government, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
• Union Stance: The strike continues “until further notice.” The union claims it is left with “no viable alternative” but to strike, despite remaining open to “meaningful discussion.”
• Stated Objective: To strengthen the independence and efficient functioning of the state judiciary.

Background: Understanding JUSUN and Judicial Autonomy in Nigeria

The Role of JUSUN

The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) is the recognized labor union for all non-judicial officers and staff of the superior and inferior courts in Nigeria. This includes registrars, bailiffs, clerks, court interpreters, and other administrative personnel. Their responsibilities are fundamental to the court system’s administration. Without these staff, the filing of cases, maintenance of records, execution of judgments, and general logistics of justice delivery come to a halt. Therefore, a JUSUN strike is a potent tool that directly paralyzes the judicial arm of government.

The Principle of Financial/Autonomous Judiciary

A recurring theme in JUSUN’s agitations across Nigeria is the demand for full financial and administrative autonomy for the judiciary. This principle is enshrined in Section 121(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which mandates that the “head of the judiciary of a State shall submit the estimates of the judiciary to the governor for inclusion in the budget of the state.” The intent is to prevent executive interference in the judiciary’s funding, thereby safeguarding its independence. Many union agreements revolve around the implementation of this constitutional provision, including the direct transfer of funds to the judiciary’s account and the settlement of outstanding salary and allowance structures, often in line with those of the federal judiciary.

History of Labor Disputes in Kaduna State

Kaduna State, like several others, has a history of public sector labor disputes. Previous strikes have involved teachers (NUT), health workers, and local government employees, often over salary adjustments, promotion exercises, and implementation of minimum wage. The current JUSUN action fits into this pattern of unresolved public service agreement implementations, suggesting a systemic challenge in state-government-to-union relations and budget execution.

Analysis: Why Agreements Are Reached But Not Implemented

The union’s statement uses strong language: “persistent failure to honour commitments and repeated unfulfilled assurances.” This points to a cycle that plagues many Nigerian state-level agreements: negotiation, agreement, delay, and eventual abandonment. Several interconnected factors likely explain this pattern in the Kaduna JUSUN strike.

Fiscal Constraints and Competing Priorities

State governments in Nigeria operate under severe fiscal pressure, with dwindling allocations from the federal account and massive infrastructural and salary bills. An agreement to grant the judiciary full financial autonomy or increase its emoluments, while constitutionally sound, may be viewed by the executive as a competing claim on limited resources. The state may verbally agree during negotiations but later prioritize other expenditures or debt servicing, leading to non-implementation of agreements.

Political Will and Executive-Judiciary Relations

There can be a subtle, or sometimes overt, resistance from some state executives to cede full control over the judiciary’s purse. Financial control is a key lever of influence. A truly autonomous judiciary with its own secure funding stream is less susceptible to executive pressure in sensitive cases. Therefore, the failure to implement agreements may be a strategic delay or obstruction to maintain a degree of leverage.

Bureaucratic Inertia and Implementation Gaps

Even with political will, the machinery of government can be slow. Agreements may require legislative approval (for budget lines), orders from the state accountant-general, or processes from the office of the Head of Service. These bureaucratic steps can stall indefinitely without a powerful champion within the executive cabinet to push them through.

The Role of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)

The NBA’s involvement as a mediator is significant. As the umbrella body for lawyers, it has a direct interest in a functioning judiciary. Its participation lends credibility and pressure to the negotiation process. However, its power is persuasive, not coercive. If the state government is unyielding, the NBA’s role is limited to advocacy, which may not be sufficient to force implementation.

Escalation Dynamics: From Ultimatum to Strike

The union’s calibrated approach—demand letter, ultimatum, strike notice, suspension, then resumption—shows a standard labor relations playbook. The suspension on October 31, 2025, was a goodwill gesture based on “assurances.” The subsequent failure of these assurances has now exhausted the union’s patience, making the resumption of the indefinite strike a logical, if drastic, step to break the deadlock. It signals that the union believes the cost of striking is now lower than the cost of continued inaction and false hope.

Practical Advice: For Stakeholders and the Public

The ongoing strike has immediate and severe consequences. Here is practical guidance for different groups:

For Litigants and the General Public

• Expect Major Delays: All court proceedings—criminal trials, civil suits, bail applications, divorce matters, probate cases—will be stalled. Cases already in progress will be adjourned indefinitely.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Consider exploring mediation, arbitration, or family/community councils for disputes that can be resolved out of court. This is a crucial stopgap.
• Stay Informed: Monitor updates from reliable news sources and official JUSUN communiqués. Do not rely on rumors.
• Patience and Peaceful Conduct: As the union appealed, understand the basis of the action. Avoid confrontations with security personnel or striking workers.

For Legal Practitioners (Lawyers)

• Client Management: Proactively communicate with all clients about the likely prolonged nature of the strike. Manage expectations regarding court dates and timelines.
• Utilize the Time: Focus on out-of-court activities: legal research, drafting, advisory services, document review, and case preparation that does not require court attendance.
• NBA Engagement: Use the NBA platform to formally and informally advocate for a swift resolution. The profession’s collective voice is powerful.
• Solidarity: While the strike is by court staff, lawyers’ work is directly impeded. Showing measured understanding of the staff’s plight can build bridges for future cooperation.

For the Kaduna State Government

• Re-engage in Good Faith: The path forward is a return to the negotiation table, this time with a concrete, time-bound implementation plan for all agreed items.
• Prioritize Implementation: Identify the most critical, cost-effective agreements (e.g., salary adjustments, operational allowances) and implement them immediately to build trust.
• Transparent Communication: If fiscal constraints are the genuine barrier, communicate this transparently to the union and the public, along with a phased implementation proposal.
• Legal and Constitutional Duty: Recognize that a functional, independent judiciary is not a favor but a constitutional requirement. Its paralysis harms the state’s rule of law, investment climate, and citizens’ rights.

For JUSUN Leadership

• Maintain Unity: Ensure all members are committed to the strike’s objectives and disciplined in its execution.
• Clear Demands: Re-articulate the specific, unimplemented agreements in simple terms for public consumption. Clarity builds public sympathy.
• Designated Spokespersons: Control the narrative through official channels to avoid misinformation.
• Willingness to Negotiate: As stated, remain open to “meaningful discussion,” but only on the basis of verifiable implementation timelines, not fresh promises.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions About the JUSUN Strike

Is a strike by judiciary staff legal in Nigeria?

Yes. As workers in the public service, JUSUN members have the right to engage in collective bargaining and industrial action, as provided for under Nigerian labor law (Trade Disputes Act). However, certain “essential services” may have different rules, though the judiciary is not typically classified as such in the same way as police or electricity. The legality of this specific strike hinges on whether the union has followed due process, which includes issuing notices and attempting conciliation, as it claims to have done.

How long could this indefinite strike last?

History suggests such strikes can last from a few days to several weeks or months. The duration depends entirely on the speed at which a mutually acceptable implementation plan is agreed upon and activated by the state government. The union’s resolve, public pressure, and intervention by higher authorities (like the National Judicial Council or even the Federal Government) can influence the timeline. There is no predetermined end date.

Who is most affected by the Kaduna judiciary strike?

The most directly affected are:

• Litigants: Individuals and businesses with pending cases, whose right to timely justice is denied.
• Lawyers and Law Firms: Their professional activity and income are severely disrupted.
• Prison Inmates: Awaiting trial prisoners face extended detention as their cases cannot be heard. This exacerbates prison congestion.
• The State’s Reputation: The image of Kaduna State as a place where the rule of law prevails and contracts are enforced is damaged, potentially affecting investment.

What is the difference between this strike and previous JUSUN actions in other states?

The core grievance—implementation of agreements and judicial autonomy—is similar to strikes in states like Rivers, Bayelsa, and Ekiti in recent years. The unique aspect here is the specific context of Kaduna State’s fiscal policies and its relationship with labor unions. The involvement of the NBA from the outset and the specific sequence of events (suspension followed by resumption) are particular to this case. The pattern reflects a national challenge in operationalizing constitutional provisions for judicial autonomy at the state level.

Can the Federal Government intervene in this state-level strike?

Direct intervention is limited, as labor matters in the states are primarily state responsibilities. However, the Federal Government, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment or the Office of the Attorney-General, can offer to mediate or facilitate talks, especially if the strike begins to have national implications or if there are allegations of violations of national labor laws. The National Judicial Council (NJC) may also issue statements or engage behind the scenes, as it has an interest in the administration of justice across all states.

Conclusion: A Test of Constitutional Commitment

The resumption of the indefinite strike by JUSUN Kaduna is far more than a routine labor dispute. It is a stark test of the Kaduna State Government’s commitment to the constitutional principle of a separate and independent judiciary. The cycle of negotiation, agreement, and non-implementation erodes trust and destabilizes the justice sector. While the strike causes immediate hardship for citizens and legal professionals, its underlying