ASURI Declares Indefinite Strike, Protests Forced Retirement of Top Scientists

The Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions (ASURI) has declared an immediate and indefinite strike.

The action is in protest against what the union described as the “unlawful” retirement of some senior research directors.

The development was communicated in a formal notice addressed to the Director General of the institute. The union made it clear that activities at the facility would be grounded.

It also warned that picketing of the institute would begin without further notice. ASURI said it has also activated a formal trade dispute process over what it called violations of the 2019 Conditions of Service.

The notice, signed by the Secretary-General of ASURI, Professor Theophilus Ndubuaku, strongly criticised the management’s decision. According to the union, the move to retire top researchers based on an eight-year tenure policy was wrong and unacceptable.

“The National Secretariat of the Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions (ASURI) notes with profound disappointment your decision to issue retirement letters to Research/Academic Cadre Directors based on the eight-year tenure policy.

“This action, taken despite our formal advisory dated 3rd March 2026, is compounded by an unconscionable plot to throw these high-caliber scientists and their families onto the streets through a directive to vacate official quarters. Such maneuvers constitute a direct betrayal of the cooperative posture ASURI has maintained to ensure industrial harmony at the Institute.

“We find it deeply regrettable that, as a former Vice-Chancellor, you have allowed administrative matters concerning academic staff to be dictated by the Director of Administration. In a university environment, which mirrors our statutory framework, such matters are overseen by an Academic Professor as Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) to prevent the exact malice and bitterness currently exhibited toward academic staff at NIMR.

“By allowing the Internal Management Committee — which should be populated by academic directors — to remain comatose, you have permitted a non-academic officer to misadvise your office and subvert the statutory protections governing the Research/Academic Cadre.

“Your attempt to enforce a policy that has been conclusively addressed, negotiated, and resolved through ministerial intervention is an actionable industrial provocation. ASURI will not stand by while the career advancement and livelihoods of its members are illegally terminated in breach of the 65-year retirement age established by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF).

“The responsibility for the total breakdown of industrial harmony at NIMR rests solely with your administration for failing to seek necessary clarification from the OHCSF before taking malicious and untoward action,” the notice concluded.

The union insisted that the affected directors were still within the legally approved retirement age. It argued that forcing them out based on tenure policy contradicts existing civil service rules. ASURI warned that the situation could cripple critical medical research work if not urgently addressed.

Sources within the institute said the looming strike may affect ongoing research projects and laboratory activities. There are also concerns that public health studies handled by the institute could be delayed.

Reacting to the development, the management of NIMR defended its action. The institute maintained that it only carried out directives from the Federal Government through the appropriate authorities.

Speaking on behalf of the management, Media Consultant Sam Eferaro said: “Concerning the 8 year term, NIMR is simply implementing the Federal Government policy as directed by the Head of civil service and the ministry of health. Management would therefor advise the union to direct its concern to the appropriate quarter, in this case, the Head of Civil Service.”

The response shows a clear disagreement between both sides. While the union is demanding a reversal of the retirements, management insists it followed due process.