The Airline Operators of Nigeria’s (AON) decision to impose a lifetime industry-wide ban on Ms. Comfort Emmanson, accused of unruly behaviour on an Ibom Air flight, has sparked legal and constitutional debate.
In a detailed statement, Senior Advocate of Nigeria and public commentator, Dr. M.O. Ubani, argued that the measure — reportedly announced after the incident involving Ms. Emmanson — raises serious concerns over due process, fairness, and statutory authority.
The controversy comes amid rising cases of disruptive conduct on domestic flights, including that of Fuji musician Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (Kwam 1), who was allegedly placed on a six-month “no-fly” list by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and the Minister of Aviation. While such temporary restrictions are within the remit of the regulator, Ubani contends that the AON’s blanket lifetime ban oversteps its legal powers.
Ubani noted that Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing before any decision affecting a person’s rights is made. Imposing a lifetime travel restriction without offering the passenger an opportunity to be heard, he said, breaches the principle of audi alteram partem.
He also cited Section 41, which guarantees every citizen’s freedom of movement, including the right to travel within Nigeria and abroad. While an individual airline may deny boarding to a passenger for safety reasons under its contract, a permanent, industry-wide ban by a trade association amounts to a de facto national travel ban — something that requires judicial sanction.
According to Ubani, the NCAA, established under the Civil Aviation Act, is the only lawful regulator empowered to enforce aviation safety measures. While NCAA rules allow airlines to deny carriage to disruptive passengers, they do not grant the AON authority to impose indefinite sanctions across all carriers.
Even in countries with strict no-fly lists, such as the United States, Ubani observed that such lists are managed by government agencies under statutory frameworks, subject to review and appeal. “A permanent blanket ban without the possibility of review is disproportionate and excessive, especially without a court conviction,” he said.
Ms. Emmanson, who is currently on trial and has been remanded pending bail, has yet to be convicted of any offence. Ubani argues that until a court determines guilt, any lifetime industry-wide punishment is premature and undermines the presumption of innocence.
He further warned that allowing a trade association to be “accuser, investigator, judge, and executioner” creates a dangerous precedent for abuse. Disputed facts, such as alleged provocation, should be determined through police investigation and judicial process.
Ubani advised that where passenger conduct poses a safety risk, the appropriate actions are:
Offload the passenger and report to Aviation Security (AVSEC) and the Nigerian Police Force.
Pursue prosecution under Civil Aviation (Security) Regulations or the Criminal Code.
Seek a court order for any travel restrictions.
Where necessary, implement an industry-wide ban administered by the NCAA, with a right of appeal.
Ubani concluded that the lifetime ban against Ms. Emmanson is “contestable and potentially unlawful,” violating principles of natural justice, constitutional freedom of movement, and proportionality in sanctions.
“A passenger in her position could approach the Federal High Court for a declaration that the ban is unconstitutional and void, alongside damages for breach of fundamental rights,” he said.
While condemning the alleged conduct of both Kwam 1 and Ms. Emmanson as falling short of acceptable in-flight standards, Ubani stressed that “justice must be balanced — one party cannot be the accuser, prosecutor, and judge. Without fairness and due process, justice is missing in action.”
