Labour unrest in Nigeria’s education sector is far from a novel phenomenon. From the persistent strikes of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to the recurring actions of non-academic and primary education staff unions, industrial action has become a defining feature of the country’s educational landscape. The current impasse involving primary school teachers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), operating under the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), is merely the latest chapter in a long-running saga of unmet obligations and broken promises.

At the heart of this dispute are long-standing grievances: unpaid salaries, inadequate welfare provisions, and the repeated failure to implement mutually agreed frameworks with the Area Councils and the FCT Administration. These issues speak not only to administrative inefficiency but also to systemic disregard for the social contract between educators and the state.

Legally, the right to strike in Nigeria occupies a contested but constitutionally acknowledged space. The Trade Disputes Act (Cap T8, LFN 2004) outlines a procedural framework for managing industrial conflicts—through mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. Yet, the law’s stipulation that all disputes must exhaust these channels before a strike is deemed lawful has often clashed with the economic urgency and survival realities that compel workers to act preemptively.

In the case of the FCT teachers’ strike—now stretching into several months—the failure of formal negotiation mechanisms points to a larger dysfunction. It exposes the paradox of Abuja: a city that stands as the symbolic heart of governance but often fails to meet basic standards of social accountability. That primary school pupils in the federal capital remain locked out of classrooms, while public officials operate from well-furnished offices mere kilometers away, underscores the growing disconnect between political authority and public service delivery.