Tension is building between retired workers of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) and the agency’s management over the alleged eviction, demolition and sale of staff quarters, despite ongoing court proceedings.

The retirees, under the auspices of the Association of Nigerian Railway Senior Citizens (ANRSC), have accused the NRC management of employing delay tactics to avoid addressing critical issues.

A document obtained by The Guardian, dated April 27, 2026, provided an update on the staff quarters issue, stating that the proposed tripartite meeting between the union, NRC management, and other stakeholders had been abandoned due to a deadlock.

Chairman of the ANRSC, Segun Esan, said that the association had removed the tripartite meeting from its engagement dashboard after realising that management had merely used it as a delay tactic while strategising.

On the legal front, Esan disclosed that proceedings were underway in multiple courts.

He noted that the case in the Court of Appeal in Lagos, for instance, would continue on the 5th of May 2026, particularly regarding the NRC’s dismissal application.

He added that another hearing was scheduled for 11th May 2026 at the National Industrial Court in Kano over alleged contempt related to the sale, lease and demolition of railway quarters.

The Chairman stressed that the disputes centre on the implementation of the Federal Government’s 2004 monetisation policy and compliance with an earlier court judgment delivered in January 2016.

The association also raised concerns over what it described as “untoward actions” by NRC management, including eviction notices issued to retired staff.

Esan cited the case of a retired staff member, Mr Michael Enejo, whose relocation request was rejected by the corporation.

He further criticised a directive issued by NRC management in April 2026, which dismissed the association’s role in representing affected retirees.

“The management’s position that our association lacks legal standing to represent members is unacceptable and undermines collective engagement,” he said.

Regarding legal strategy, he said the association’s counsel was actively engaging with the NRC leadership.

“Our lawyers have continued robust and constructive engagement with the NRC Managing Director, and appropriate responses have been made. Events in the coming days will further clarify our position,” the document added.

He also called on members to financially support the ongoing litigation, noting that compliance with the association’s levies remains low.

However, attempts to obtain a response from the NRC proved abortive.

When The Guardian contacted the NRC’s Chief Public Relations Officer (CPRO), Calistus Unyimadu, he did not respond to calls or messages sent to his mobile phone.

But a source close to NRC management, who did not wish to be named, maintained that the issues raised by the retirees were longstanding and had been extensively addressed in court.

The source explained that what are commonly referred to as staff quarters are, in reality, operational rest houses essential for railway services.

The source said: “Except we all agree that the railway should no longer operate, it would be difficult to monetise the houses because where would drivers, mechanics, lab staff and administrative officers stay? This position has been argued at both the National Industrial Court and the Court of Appeal.”

The corporation further dismissed allegations of indiscriminate sale or demolition of railway properties as alleged by the retirees, insisting that all railway lands are federally gazetted and cannot be sold outright.

The source insisted that any demolition carried out by the corporation follows due process, stressing that “any inch of land you see demolished must be because its acquisition has been revoked and possession taken by the corporation.”

While acknowledging the existence of “underhand deals” in some cases, NRC insisted that these do not involve existing staff quarters but rather vacant land under lease arrangements.

The railway source maintained that none of the corporation’s land could have been illegally obtained, as all of it is protected under federal law.