Secrets Reporters
Fresh legal troubles have engulfed Premium Pension Limited as no fewer than 70 former employees have dragged the pension firm before the National Industrial Court in Abuja, alleging wrongful dismissal, unpaid gratuities, withheld bonuses and what they describe as a calculated scheme to deny them legitimate entitlements.
Findings by SecretsReporters reveal that the dispute stems from a mass disengagement exercise carried out by the company in August 2025, an action now being challenged in court by the affected workers who claim the exercise was executed in bad faith and designed to strip them of benefits earned after years of service.
Court documents reviewed by SecretsReporters show that the ex-workers are demanding declarations that their disengagement was illegal, unlawful and contrary to established labour practices. They are also seeking the payment of gratuities, productivity bonuses, profit-sharing benefits and other outstanding entitlements allegedly withheld by the company.
The matter came up before Justice Rakiya Haastrup of the National Industrial Court, Abuja, who fixed October 21, 2026, for further hearing after counsel to Premium Pension requested additional time to respond to issues raised by the claimants.
Allegations of Backdated Sack Letters
One of the most contentious issues emerging from court filings reviewed by SecretsReporters is the allegation that Premium Pension deliberately backdated disengagement letters to July 29, 2025, while serving the affected workers days later in August after they had already resumed work for the month.
The claimants argue that the move effectively denied them access to annual education subsidies and other benefits tied to active employment status in August.
According to the suit, several of the affected staff had reported for duty and carried out official assignments before receiving the termination notices, raising questions about the actual effective date of their disengagement.
The workers further alleged that the company’s actions were calculated to avoid financial obligations owed to them.
Claims of Unpaid Gratuities and Bonuses
Beyond the legality of the disengagement, the former employees are accusing Premium Pension of failing to pay gratuities that had allegedly been approved for staff, as well as productivity bonuses and profit-sharing benefits.
Sources familiar with the matter told SecretsReporters that the dispute has left many of the affected workers facing severe financial hardship, with some reportedly struggling to meet family obligations nearly a year after the disengagement exercise.
The claimants maintain that repeated demands for payment yielded no positive response, forcing them to seek judicial intervention.
Premium Pension Denies Wrongdoing
In its defence before the court, Premium Pension rejected the allegations and insisted that the disengagement was part of a restructuring and reorganisation programme.
The company argued that the affected workers were paid three months’ salary in lieu of notice in accordance with its Human Resources Policy Manual and Employee Handbook.
Premium Pension further maintained that, as a private sector employer, it retains the right to disengage employees provided the conditions contained in their employment contracts are fulfilled.
The company also asked the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that it complied with all applicable labour obligations.
What the Court Will Determine
Legal experts monitoring the case say the proceedings could establish whether the pension firm acted within the limits of labour law and whether the alleged backdating of disengagement letters unlawfully deprived employees of accrued benefits.
For now, the courtroom battle is expected to focus on critical questions surrounding workers’ rights, severance obligations, gratuity payments and the extent to which employers can rely on restructuring exercises to justify mass disengagements.
As the legal showdown intensifies, all eyes will be on the National Industrial Court when proceedings resume on October 21, where both sides are expected to present further evidence in a case that could have far-reaching implications for labour relations within Nigeria’s pension industry.