HOW LAWFUL IS THE ALLEGED LIFETIME BAN BY THE AIRLINE OPERATORS OF NIGERIA (AON) ON AN OFFENDING PASSENGER?
The recent unruly conduct of passengers during domestic flights in Nigeria has raised legitimate concerns about acceptable in-flight behaviour, aviation safety, and appropriate disciplinary measures. Two recent cases stand out: that of Fuji musician, Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (Kwam 1), and Ms. Comfort Emmanson, both accused of breaches of aviation regulations resulting in flight disruptions.
While Kwam 1 was allegedly placed on a six-month “no-fly” list by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and the Minister of Aviation, Festus Keyamo, Ms. Comfort Emmanson has reportedly been placed on a lifetime no-fly list by the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON).
It is this latest measure, the lifetime ban by AON that raises profound legal, procedural, and constitutional concerns
Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees the right to a fair hearing before a court or tribunal established by law in the determination of a person’s rights or obligations.
The AON’s unilateral action to impose a lifetime industry-wide ban, without affording the passenger the opportunity to be heard, violates the principle of audi alteram partem.
This decision is punitive in nature and impacts the passenger’s right to freedom of movement and access to lawful transport services, yet it was taken without judicial process.
Section 41 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to move freely within Nigeria and to travel abroad.
While an individual airline may refuse carriage to a passenger for safety reasons under its contractual rights, an industry-wide lifetime ban by a trade association like AON amounts to a de facto travel ban. This type of sanction has nationwide and international implications.
The life-time ban constitutes a restriction on a constitutional right without a court order.
The lawful regulator of civil aviation in Nigeria is the NCAA, created under the Civil Aviation Act by the National Assembly. NCAA regulations allow airlines to deny boarding to disruptive passengers for safety reasons, but do not confer on AON the power to impose an indefinite, industry-wide sanction.
Even in jurisdictions with strict “no-fly” regimes (e.g., the United States), such lists are managed by government agencies, subject to statutory frameworks, periodic reviews, and appeal mechanisms.
A permanent blanket ban without the possibility of review or reversal is disproportionate. It should be challenged as excessive, especially where the alleged misconduct has not resulted in a court conviction.
In Ms. Emmanson’s case, she has been arraigned and remanded pending trial, a bailable offence if established. Until the courts determine guilt, any indefinite industry-wide punishment is premature.
Allowing a trade association to act as an accuser, investigator, judge, and executioner sets a dangerous precedent for bias and abuse. Disputed facts, such as whether provocation occurred, are matters for police investigation and criminal prosecution, not unilateral corporate adjudication.
The AON’s reference to past incidents involving other public figures, without binding judicial outcomes, also risks reputational punishment without proof.
If a passenger’s conduct threatens safety, airlines and the AON should offload the passenger and report to
Aviation Security (AVSEC) and the Nigerian Police
Force.
2. They can also purse prosecution under the Civil Aviation (Security) Regulations or the Criminal Code. Thirdly, where justified, they can seek court order imposing travel restrictions. Finally they can ensure industry-wide ban, which is based on NCAA-administered regulations with a right of appeal to the appropriate court if feasible.
While unruly behaviour on flights is unacceptable and should be dealt with decisively, the Airline Operators of Nigeria lacks constitutional or statutory authority to impose a lifetime, industry-wide ban without due process.
The lifetime ban against Ms. Comfort Emmanson is contestable and potentially unlawful as it violates:
Natural justice (right to fair hearing)
Constitutional freedom of movement
Proportionality in sanctions
Such a passenger could seek redress in the Federal High Court, asking for a declaration that the ban is unconstitutional and void, alongside damages for breach of fundamental rights.
In condemning the alleged conduct of both Kwam 1 and Ms. Emmanson, which falls far short of acceptable standards, it must equally be said that justice must be balanced. One party can not be the accuser, prosecutor, and judge. Without fairness and due process, justice is missing in action.
Dr M.O..Ubani SAN
Legal Practitioner, Public Commentator.
