The recent wave of unruly passenger incidents on Nigerian domestic flights has sparked debate over aviation safety, in-flight conduct, and the boundaries of disciplinary measures.
Two cases in particular — involving Fuji musician Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (popularly known as Kwam 1) and Ms. Comfort Emmanson — have placed the spotlight on the limits of regulatory and corporate authority in the aviation sector.
While Kwam 1 was reportedly handed a six-month no-fly sanction by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and Minister of Aviation Festus Keyamo, Ms. Emmanson has been placed on a lifetime no-fly list by the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON).
Senior Advocate of Nigeria and public commentator, Dr. M. O. Ubani, strongly criticised the AON’s decision, warning that it raises serious legal, procedural, and constitutional concerns.
Citing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Ubani stressed that every Nigerian is entitled to a fair hearing before a court or tribunal in the determination of their rights or obligations.
By imposing a lifetime industry-wide ban without affording Emmanson the opportunity to be heard, the AON’s action violates the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem — the right to hear the other side.
The decision, he argued, is punitive and directly impacts Emmanson’s right to freedom of movement under Section 41 of the Constitution, which guarantees the liberty to travel within Nigeria and abroad.
While an individual airline may refuse carriage to a passenger for safety reasons, an industry-wide lifetime ban by a private trade association amounts to a de facto travel ban — something that requires a court order and falls under the jurisdiction of the NCAA.
READ ALSO: NCAA denies double standards in KWAM 1, Emmanson airline incidents
Ubani noted that the NCAA, established under the Civil Aviation Act, is the lawful aviation regulator in Nigeria. Its rules allow airlines to deny boarding to disruptive passengers for safety reasons, but they do not empower the AON to enforce indefinite, industry-wide sanctions.
Even in countries with strict no-fly regimes, such as the United States, such lists are government-managed, subject to statutory oversight, regular review, and an appeals process.
By contrast, AON’s permanent ban, without the possibility of review or reversal, is disproportionate and potentially unlawful — particularly in a case where no court has yet determined guilt.
In Emmanson’s situation, she has only been arraigned and remanded pending trial for a bailable offence. Until the courts deliver a verdict, any indefinite industry-wide sanction is premature.
Ubani cautioned that allowing a trade association to act as “accuser, investigator, judge, and executioner” sets a dangerous precedent for bias, abuse, and reputational harm.
He further criticised AON’s reference to past incidents involving public figures without judicial outcomes, saying it risked unfairly damaging reputations without proof.
Ubani made it clear that while the alleged conduct of both Kwam 1 and Emmanson fell short of acceptable standards, disciplinary measures must be balanced with fairness and due process.
“Justice must not be one-sided. One party cannot be the accuser, prosecutor, and judge. Without fairness and due process, justice is missing in action,” he concluded.