Nigerian Allied Health Professionals Mobilise for Nationwide Strike Over 19 Months of Unpaid Allowances

By Simpson Global Media News Desk

Report date: Saturday, October 24, 2026
Report preparation time: Approximately 7:15 a.m. West Africa Time (WAT)
Story location: Enugu, Nigeria, with implications for federal health institutions nationwide

Union warns of renewed industrial action

The Nigerian Union of Allied Health Professionals (NUAHP) has directed its members across the country to begin preparing for a possible nationwide strike, citing outstanding salary adjustments, 19 months of professional-allowance arrears and what it describes as delays in implementing agreements reached with the Federal Government.

The directive followed a meeting of the union’s National Executive Council (NEC), held from October 21 to 22, 2026, at Dannic Hotels in New Haven, Enugu State. In a communiqué signed by National President Kamal Ibrahim and General Secretary Martin Egbanubi, the union urged the government to honour the terms of settlement reached with the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU) on February 5, 2026.

NUAHP said its members should prepare for possible renewed industrial action after the expiration of a two-week ultimatum issued by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), with the support of the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC), on October 23. The union argued that commitments made after an earlier prolonged strike had still not been fully implemented. (PUNCH, October 24, 2026; Nigerian Pilot, October 23, 2026.)

The development raises concerns about another possible disruption to public healthcare services if negotiations fail and the union proceeds with industrial action.

However, NUAHP’s mobilisation directive is not confirmation that a new nationwide strike has already begun. The reports reviewed for this article did not establish a new strike commencement date or confirm that hospitals had shut down because of this latest decision.

The immediate dispute centres on the implementation of the Consolidated Health Salary Structure (CONHESS), unpaid professional allowances, eligibility for call-duty payments and promotion-related concerns. The union has also raised issues involving collective bargaining, professional representation and the treatment of healthcare workers in public institutions.

The government’s implementation of the outstanding commitments will be central to whether the dispute can be resolved without another interruption to health services.

What is the main dispute about?

At the centre of the union’s complaint is the alleged failure to implement an agreed adjustment to CONHESS and settle outstanding professional-allowance payments.

NUAHP said the Federal Government had issued a circular on reviewed professional allowances on November 19, 2025, but that 19 months of accrued arrears remained unpaid. The union called for the immediate payment of the outstanding amounts to eligible healthcare workers.

The union also expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in implementing the CONHESS adjustment, arguing that the government had committed to addressing the issues that led JOHESU members to suspend an earlier nationwide strike.

The union’s position is that workers should not continue waiting for changes and payments that, according to its account, have already been agreed upon. Its NEC called on the government to take concrete action to fulfil those commitments and prevent a return to industrial action.

These are the union’s stated claims and demands. The reports reviewed did not include a detailed government statement addressing each item in the latest communiqué or provide a worker-by-worker reconciliation of the arrears.

That distinction is important because the dispute involves several separate matters: whether particular salary adjustments have been implemented, which payments remain outstanding, who qualifies for specific allowances and how promotion rules are applied across different cadres.

Resolving the dispute will require more than a general assurance. The parties will need to establish which obligations remain outstanding, which workers are eligible, the relevant payment schedules and the steps required to implement any unresolved provisions of the agreement.

For healthcare workers, the outcome affects remuneration and career progression. For patients, it matters because unresolved labour disputes can place additional uncertainty on public hospitals and other health institutions that depend on a range of professional staff to provide services. (PUNCH; News247.ng.)

Understanding the CONHESS salary structure

CONHESS stands for the Consolidated Health Salary Structure. It is a salary framework used for eligible categories of health-sector personnel in Nigeria’s public service.

The union says the adjustment to the structure remains outstanding despite earlier discussions and the terms of settlement signed with JOHESU in February.

Salary-structure adjustments can affect how eligible staff are remunerated within the applicable framework. Implementation may involve administrative instructions, the correct salary tables, payroll processing and arrangements for any arrears that arise from a revised structure.

The current dispute also involves the relationship between salary adjustments and the professional allowances available to different categories of workers. These are related but separate issues: an adjustment to a salary structure does not automatically settle every allowance or every claim concerning promotion and call-duty payments.

NUAHP said the CONHESS adjustment remained unresolved even after members of JOHESU had taken part in an 84-day strike before suspending the industrial action. The union argued that renewed mobilisation had become necessary because the commitments that followed the earlier dispute had not been fully delivered. (PUNCH; Nigerian Pilot.)

The length of the earlier strike is significant because prolonged industrial action can impose costs on both workers and public services. Employees may lose income during a stoppage, while hospitals can face backlogs in appointments, investigations, rehabilitation and other services, depending on which categories of staff participate and what arrangements remain in place.

A salary dispute that continues after a lengthy strike may also weaken confidence in the negotiation process. If workers believe that written commitments will not be implemented, they may become less willing to rely on further assurances without concrete evidence of progress.

The union’s current demand is therefore not limited to opening another round of talks. It wants the government to fulfil the earlier settlement and demonstrate that the relevant adjustments and outstanding entitlements are being addressed.

Why the 19 months of allowance arrears matter

NUAHP said eligible health professionals are owed 19 months of arrears arising from the review of professional allowances. It is seeking immediate settlement of the outstanding payments.

Professional allowances are distinct from a basic salary. They may be associated with the nature of a role, particular duties or conditions under which eligible staff work. The rules governing any allowance depend on the relevant policy and the employee’s eligibility.

The union said the government issued a circular concerning reviewed professional allowances on November 19, 2025, but the accrued arrears remained unpaid. It is asking the authorities responsible for implementation to ensure that eligible staff receive the payments due under the applicable rules.

For workers, an extended delay can make household budgeting more difficult. Employees may have planned expenses around the expected terms of remuneration, while the cost of transport, food, housing and other essentials can change over time.

Outstanding payments can also become a source of mistrust when staff members believe that colleagues performing comparable duties are being treated differently or that certain professional groups are excluded from benefits for which they qualify.

However, the reports reviewed do not provide the total monetary value of the 19 months of arrears, the number of affected workers or a complete breakdown of the professional categories and individual amounts. It would therefore be misleading to assign a national financial value to the claim without a verified payroll or government figure.

The union’s demand for immediate settlement also leaves practical questions for the authorities: which staff have confirmed eligibility, whether all claims have been reconciled, what budgetary and administrative steps remain and when payment can be completed.

Publishing a clear implementation schedule could help reduce uncertainty. A transparent process would also make it easier for affected workers to verify their individual status and for the parties to identify whether remaining disagreements concern eligibility, calculation, funding or implementation.

The dispute is ultimately about more than an announced payment. It concerns whether approved remuneration arrangements are applied consistently and whether employees can obtain clear answers about their entitlements. (PUNCH; Nigerian Pilot.)

Call-duty allowances and promotion concerns

The union has raised additional concerns about call-duty allowances and career advancement.

According to the NEC communiqué, some health professionals continued to be excluded from call-duty allowances despite performing essential work outside their normal hours. NUAHP specifically identified health information management professionals, medical social workers, speech therapists and audiologists among the categories it said were affected.

Call-duty arrangements can be important in healthcare institutions because medical and support services may operate beyond ordinary office hours. The rules determining who qualifies for an allowance must be applied in line with the relevant government circulars and regulations.

NUAHP urged government agencies and the heads of healthcare institutions to comply with the applicable instructions issued by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission and ensure that eligible professionals receive the entitlements due to them.

The union also complained that some health professionals who qualified for promotion from CONHESS 14 to CONHESS 15 remained unable to advance. It called on the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to direct the chief executives of healthcare institutions to follow the relevant promotion guidelines, regardless of professional cadre.

Promotion disputes can affect more than an employee’s salary. Career progression may influence professional development, morale, retention and a worker’s willingness to continue serving in a particular institution.

At the same time, individual promotion decisions can depend on eligibility requirements, service records, vacancies, administrative procedures and the rules applying to a given role. The reports reviewed did not provide individual cases or a complete institutional record establishing how many workers are affected.

The practical task for the government and hospital managements is to examine the union’s allegations against the relevant rules and records. Where workers meet the requirements, the authorities should explain how their cases will be processed. Where there is a disagreement about eligibility or the applicable procedure, the reasons should be communicated clearly.

Leaving such questions unresolved can compound the wider salary dispute. The union’s position is that all eligible professionals should receive the allowances and career consideration provided for under the relevant rules and agreements. (PUNCH.)

Who are the allied health professionals?

NUAHP represents allied health professionals, a broad group of healthcare workers whose roles support diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, patient information and other aspects of service delivery.

The roles named in the union’s latest communiqué include health information management professionals, medical social workers, speech therapists and audiologists. Allied health disciplines also include professionals whose work contributes to investigations, rehabilitation and other clinical or technical services.

These jobs are distinct from the work of medical doctors, but they can be important to the functioning of a healthcare institution. A hospital’s ability to deliver care often depends on cooperation among multiple disciplines rather than on the availability of doctors alone.

Health information management staff, for example, support the organisation and handling of patient records and related health information. Medical social workers help address social factors that can affect patients’ access to care and ability to manage their circumstances. Speech therapists and audiologists work in areas involving communication, speech, language, hearing and related rehabilitation needs.

The exact tasks and staffing arrangements vary between institutions. Some services can continue through alternative staffing arrangements, while others may be delayed if the relevant professionals are unavailable. The current reports do not establish which hospitals would be affected or how a future strike would be implemented at individual facilities.

Understanding the range of disciplines involved helps explain why labour disputes affecting allied health professionals can have consequences beyond one department. The services provided by different cadres are often connected, and a disruption in one area may create delays elsewhere in a patient’s care.

That is why resolving employment disputes in the health sector requires attention to the concerns of different professional groups, the requirements of hospitals and the impact on people who rely on public services.

Potential consequences for patients and hospitals

No new nationwide strike commencement date was established in the reports reviewed as of Saturday, October 24. The immediate development is the union’s instruction to members to prepare for possible action.

If industrial action eventually occurs, the impact would depend on which members participate, the institutions involved, the duration of the stoppage and any essential-service arrangements. It would be premature to suggest that all public hospitals are already affected or that every allied health service would stop.

Nevertheless, the possibility of another prolonged dispute raises legitimate concerns about continuity of care.

Depending on local staffing and service arrangements, industrial action involving relevant allied health professionals could delay some routine administrative processes, diagnostic support, rehabilitation, specialist assessments or follow-up services. It could also create additional work for staff who remain on duty and contribute to backlogs when normal operations resume.

The consequences for an individual patient would depend on the type and urgency of the service required. A delay in a routine appointment may have a different effect from a delay affecting a person who needs timely clinical assessment, a procedure or ongoing rehabilitation.

Hospitals may need to prioritise urgent cases and communicate any changes in appointments if disruption occurs. Patients should follow official information from their healthcare facilities rather than assume that every service is either operating normally or entirely unavailable.

Health institutions also have a responsibility to provide clear updates and make appropriate arrangements for urgent care within their capacity. The details of any such arrangements would need to be confirmed if industrial action is announced.

The best way to reduce uncertainty is to resolve the underlying dispute before a stoppage begins. That would help workers obtain clarity on outstanding entitlements while reducing the risk of additional disruption for patients and healthcare institutions.

The earlier 84-day strike and the February settlement

NUAHP’s latest directive refers to an earlier 84-day strike undertaken by JOHESU members. The union said the industrial action was suspended after the government committed to addressing the issues that had caused the dispute.

The February 5, 2026 terms of settlement are now central to its argument. NUAHP has urged the Federal Government to fulfil its obligations under that agreement and take concrete steps to prevent the suspended strike from resuming.

A settlement is intended to provide a basis for resolving a dispute and setting out the steps that each party is expected to take. Its practical value depends on whether the commitments can be implemented, monitored and verified.

Where the parties disagree about progress, several questions can arise. They may differ over whether a commitment has been fulfilled, whether a circular has been implemented across all eligible institutions, whether arrears have been calculated correctly or whether further administrative action is required.

The union’s current position is that outstanding obligations remain and that members should be prepared for a possible return to industrial action.

The reports reviewed do not include the full text of every clause of the February agreement or an independent assessment of implementation across all institutions. It is therefore not possible to identify every outstanding administrative step from the public reporting alone.

What is clear is that the union believes the continued delay has undermined the settlement’s purpose. A renewed round of industrial action would indicate that the disagreements had not been resolved through the earlier process.

For the government and union representatives, the immediate priority is to determine the status of each commitment, communicate any progress and agree on a credible way to address remaining matters.

Where payments are due, a clear timetable and transparent verification could help build confidence. Where a matter requires further negotiation, the parties would need to specify what remains disputed and how they intend to resolve it.

The role of organised labour in the dispute

The mobilisation directive followed the expiration of a two-week ultimatum issued by the NLC with the support of the TUC on October 23, according to NUAHP and media reports.

The involvement of the labour centres increases the significance of the dispute because the issue is being framed within a wider effort to secure implementation of agreed worker entitlements.

NUAHP acknowledged the interventions of the NLC and TUC, particularly on the CONHESS adjustment and the conclusion of collective bargaining negotiations. It called on the government to act before the industrial dispute escalates.

Trade unions can use negotiation, formal notices, ultimatums and industrial action to press for compliance with agreements or changes in employment conditions. The timing and legal requirements for any particular action depend on the circumstances and the applicable rules.

At this stage, the latest announcement establishes mobilisation for a possible strike, rather than a confirmed date for a new stoppage. Further statements from NUAHP, JOHESU, the labour centres or government authorities will be important in determining the next step.

A negotiated outcome would need to address the substance of the dispute. General appeals for calm may help create an atmosphere for talks, but workers are seeking specific steps on salary structure, arrears, allowances and career progression.

The government, for its part, would need to communicate which matters it considers resolved, which require further processing and when outstanding actions can be completed.

Clear communication is especially important during labour disputes affecting healthcare, where uncertainty can affect staff morale and the planning of services. The parties have an opportunity to reduce that uncertainty by establishing a common account of what remains outstanding and a process for resolving it.

Union also calls for protection of healthcare workers

Beyond remuneration, NUAHP expressed concern about reported incidents of physical assault, verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment against healthcare professionals while they carry out their duties.

The union said existing anti-assault guidelines issued by the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare should be enforced more effectively. It called for improved security arrangements in hospitals and other healthcare institutions.

Health workers interact with patients and families at moments of illness, distress and uncertainty. Disagreements can arise over waiting times, medical decisions, service availability or other circumstances, but violence and intimidation can endanger staff and interfere with the delivery of care.

The union’s position is that healthcare professionals should be able to carry out their duties without facing physical attacks or harassment. Effective protection can involve clear reporting procedures, prompt investigation of incidents, appropriate security arrangements and public communication about acceptable conduct within healthcare facilities.

The communiqué’s concerns are allegations and calls for action; the reports reviewed do not establish a verified national count of assaults or provide a detailed breakdown by profession, location or institution.

Even so, workplace safety is an important issue for a functioning health system. Staff who feel unsafe may experience additional stress, and serious incidents can disrupt services or make it harder for institutions to retain personnel.

The government and hospital managements would need to ensure that relevant guidelines are communicated and applied consistently, and that incidents can be reported and handled through appropriate procedures.

This issue is separate from the salary dispute, but it forms part of the union’s wider concerns about professional welfare, workplace conditions and the treatment of healthcare workers.

Concerns over governance and health-sector legislation

NUAHP also called on President Bola Tinubu to reconstitute the boards and governing councils of federal health institutions and regulatory agencies. The union said the delay had lasted more than three years.

The appointment of governing boards is relevant to oversight, institutional direction and accountability. The responsibilities of each board depend on the enabling legislation and the institution involved, but governance arrangements can affect how institutions make decisions and supervise management.

The union’s communiqué did not provide a complete list of every institution whose board it says requires reconstitution. Its demand reflects its concern about what it described as prolonged delays in restoring those governance structures.

NUAHP also asked the National Assembly to suspend further consideration of the Health Sector Executive Amendment Bills 2026, arguing that the proposed changes could affect allied health professionals and the wider health system.

The union maintained that the contributions and interests of allied health professionals should be considered before legislative decisions are taken. The reports reviewed did not detail all the specific provisions of the bills that concern the union, making it necessary to distinguish the union’s position from an independent legal assessment of the proposals.

The legislative debate and the employment dispute are related to the union’s broader representation of its members, but they are not the same issue. Resolving the salary and allowance demands would not automatically settle the union’s concerns about governance or proposed legislation.

Each matter requires its own process. Financial entitlements and salary adjustments may require administrative implementation and negotiation, while legislative proposals must be considered through the National Assembly’s procedures.

The government and lawmakers will need to address the union’s concerns through the appropriate institutional channels if they are to prevent those separate disagreements from adding to wider labour tensions. (PUNCH; Nigerian Pilot.)

Why a prompt resolution matters for Nigeria’s health system

A stable health workforce is important to the delivery of care. Facilities require staff with different skills, reliable payment arrangements, functioning management structures and sufficient resources to provide services safely.

When employment disputes continue for long periods, the effects can extend beyond the immediate disagreement about pay. Workers may lose confidence in negotiations, managers may struggle to plan staffing, and patients may face uncertainty about the availability of services.

A strike can also create a backlog of work that remains after the immediate industrial action ends. Depending on the services affected, facilities may need to reschedule appointments, manage delayed assessments and prioritise patients whose care cannot safely be postponed.

These are potential consequences, not a statement that such disruption has already occurred as a result of the latest mobilisation directive.

The risk is one reason that clear implementation of agreements matters. If outstanding salary adjustments and allowances are addressed in a verifiable way, the parties may be able to resolve a central element of the dispute without returning to a prolonged stoppage.

A credible process would also need to address how future agreements are monitored. Both parties would benefit from having clear responsibilities, dates, reporting arrangements and procedures for resolving disagreements over implementation.

In the longer term, a more predictable approach to labour relations can support workforce planning. Health institutions can focus on delivering services when staff and management have greater clarity about employment conditions, obligations and how disputes will be handled.

For the public, continuity of healthcare is the most immediate concern. A dispute that is resolved before industrial action begins would help avoid placing additional uncertainty on patients and the facilities that serve them.

What happens next?

The union’s immediate position is that its members should prepare for possible nationwide industrial action after the labour ultimatum expired on October 23.

The next developments will depend on whether the Federal Government and the unions make progress on the outstanding demands and whether a further decision is announced regarding a strike.

Important questions remain: whether the CONHESS adjustment will be implemented, how the 19 months of professional-allowance arrears will be reconciled and paid, whether eligible workers will receive the call-duty allowances they claim are missing, and how promotion concerns will be addressed.

The government would also need to clarify the status of the February 5 settlement and identify the actions required to fulfil any outstanding commitments. The union’s latest communiqué calls for urgent compliance but does not provide a new strike start date.

No government response addressing every demand was established in the reports reviewed for this article. Further statements from the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the relevant payroll and salary authorities, JOHESU or the labour centres will be important to clarify the path towards a resolution.

Healthcare workers and patients should follow official information from their unions and healthcare institutions for any verified updates on industrial action or service availability. The current mobilisation threat should not be treated as evidence that all public hospitals have already suspended services.

Conclusion: settlement implementation is now the central test

NUAHP’s mobilisation directive has renewed the possibility of industrial action in Nigeria’s public health sector, with the union citing 19 months of professional-allowance arrears, delayed CONHESS adjustments and unresolved commitments under the February 5, 2026 terms of settlement with JOHESU.

The union says members should prepare for a possible nationwide strike after the expiration of the NLC-backed ultimatum on October 23. It has also raised complaints about call-duty allowances, promotions, workplace safety, institutional governance and proposed legislative amendments.

The current development is a warning of possible renewed industrial action, not confirmation that a new strike has begun. The next step will depend on the response of the Federal Government and the progress of negotiations.

For the workers involved, the outstanding questions concern remuneration, professional recognition, career progression and whether agreed commitments will be implemented. For Nigeria’s health system, a negotiated resolution would help reduce the risk of interruptions and provide greater certainty for hospitals, staff and patients.

The immediate test will be whether the parties can move from longstanding commitments to clear, verifiable action. A transparent timetable for resolving eligible arrears, implementing salary adjustments and addressing outstanding issues could help rebuild confidence and reduce the likelihood of another prolonged dispute.

For patients, the priority is continuity of care. For the government and health-sector unions, the challenge is to settle the labour dispute before the possibility of another nationwide stoppage becomes a reality.