Recently, the Nigerian aviation industry has come under a barrage of scrutiny from the public, over two incidents. First, the one involving music maestro Alhaji Wasiu Ayinde Anifowoshe aka KWAM 1 and Valuejet Airline, and the second, a few days after, involving a female airline passenger, Miss Comfort Emmanson, on a flight operated by Ibom Air. Both incidents attracted wide criticisms for different reasons, particularly Miss Emmason who was video recorded being aggressive, and was eventually dragged off the aircraft with her private parts exposed. The offensive  video recording, immediately found its way to the general public. Miss Emmanson ended up at the Kirikiri Correctional Facility, where she spent at least one night. The approach of the Aviation Minister, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Festus Keyamo, elicited some recriminations, having issued clemency for KWAM 1 and Miss Emmanson. Legal pundits are now asking whether Keyamo, SAN didn’t act beyond his powers; whether the alleged offenders really deserve the pardon they were granted, under the circumstances and what this portends for the punishment for passengers who may be unruly in the future, having let off these two. Femi Falana, SAN; Stephen Kola-Balogun; Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja; P.D. Pius and Felix Eghie Sugaba express their opinions about these unfortunate incidents    

FG Has Lost Moral Right to Prosecute Unruly Passengers 

Femi Falana, SAN

The office of the Inspector-General of Police has commenced investigation into the serious criminal allegations levelled against Fuji star, Wasiu Ayinde Marshal, popularly known as KWAM 1 over his recent conduct at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja. One of the allegations being investigated is that the suspect opened his flask and poured its contents on a Pilot, a security officer, and some passengers.

Without allowing the Police to conclude the investigation and possibly file charges against the suspect, the Federal Government has hastily accepted his apology and granted him a pardon. As if that is not enough, the Federal Government has announced plans to engage the suspect as an Ambassador for proper airport security protocol, after the recent controversy.

 It is doubtful, that the Federal Government has considered the full implications of the handling of the case of KWAM 1. By this hypothetical action, the Federal Government has lost its moral right to arrest and prosecute any passenger who commits an offence at any of the nation’s airports. For instance, the Federal Government decided to withdraw the charges filed against Ms Comfort Emmanson in the Magistrate Court, the passenger accused of unruly behaviour aboard an Ibom Air flight, because of the refusal to charge KWAM 1 with appropriate criminal offences.

Since citizens have equal rights, obligations, and opportunities before the law, the Federal Government will henceforth, be accused of subjecting any unruly passenger to discriminatory treatment, on the ground that KWAM 1 was ‘pardoned’ without any criminal trial whatsoever.

Femi Falana, SAN, Human Rights Advocate, Lagos 

Why an Investigation, Inquiry and Review Shouldn’t have been Compromised 

Stephen Kola-Balogun 

Minister of Aviation: Duty bound to Conduct Investigation/Inquiry 

The recent Press Statement and decision by the Federal Minister of Aviation and Aerospace, Festus Keyamo SAN , CON , FCIArb  released  on Wednesday 13th of August, 2025 withdrawing the criminal complaint against Ms Comfort Emmanson, is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. No doubt he meant well, but his responsibility as a Federal Minister is to the country he serves. He was not acting in his professional capacity as a Senior Advocate, Arbitrator or Mediator, as can be seen from his credentials above. We know he sometimes does, of course, but, in this instance, he was acting as the Federal Minister responsible for aviation and aerospace matters. He is therefore, duty bound to set up and conduct an investigation/inquiry into all the recent airline incidents, as matter of urgency. The investigation/inquiry should also have been given a time frame of no more than 4- 6 weeks, to report back to him. Thereafter, he would be at liberty to either accept all the recommendations or reject some, as the case may be and/or as Federal Minister, have the latitude to add some of the Government’s own recommendations. It’s only after taking the above approach, that he can be perceived to have done his job.

Ironically, Comfort Emmanson, in issuing a public apology for her aggressive conduct on a recent domestic Ibom Airline flight, called for a balanced independent review of everything that happened from the cabin exchange to her ground handling, so lessons can be learned on all sides. She further requested that clear guidelines should then be issued, that protect not only the safety, but also the dignity of passengers, including strict prohibitions on filming and exposing restrained passengers and individuals. As earlier highlighted, this approach if it had been adopted (as it should have ), would have been broad enough to cover all the recent airline incidents including that of the musician, Wasiu Ayinde Anifowoshe, who inexplicably without any prior or proper investigation or inquiry into his recent and much publicised incident, was made the nation’s aviation ambassador.  I would rather instead, we call him the new “Poster Boy for Promoting Aviation Conduct and Manners”. Same thing, of course, but not as glamorous. The latter being seen, as more contrite and penitent.  

Use of Judicial Review 

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also issued a statement of its own, signed by its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN and its National Secretary, Dr Mobolaji Ojibara, condemning the treatment of Ms Comfort Emmanson  by Ibom Airlines, claiming it was reckless and violated her right to dignity and person. They further stated that the actions taken were heavy handed, unlawful and an affront to the rule of law. The NBA, however, seemed to forget that they must always be seen to act for both sides. They are the professional body for Lawyers, and who may have ended up representing both Ms Emmanson and the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON). 

Since the AON had already taken a decision and given a lifetime ban to Ms Emmanson, perhaps, even without a fair hearing, what the NBA ought to have done, was to call for a judicial review of that administrative decision. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Nigerian Lawyer and Judge just don’t know how and when to call for the judicial review of an administrative action, yet alone understand the purpose and essence of this concept and procedure. 

There is a massive gaping hole, in how we practice law in this regard. The AON had taken a decision. If it’s thought that they had acted ultra vires, or that perhaps, that decision  ought to have been taken by the Civil Aviation Authority, and/or that Ms Emmanson was not given a fair hearing, and/or that other rights may have been infringed upon, then all the NBA needed to have done, was to advice the aggrieved party to seek a judicial review of that administrative action. If this was done, all wrongs being complained about could easily have been redressed. This is why we are supposed to be Lawyers. 

Instead we continuously fall into the trap of arguing and debating issues, like the ordinary man on the street. In short, it’s not only the aviation staff and operators that need to embark on training, but also Lawyers and Judges on how to handle mis- steps taken in administrative actions. This is long overdue.

Stephen Kola-Balogun, Legal Practitioner, Lagos

Nolle Prosequi and the Comfort Emmanson Case: Lawful Discretion or Abuse of Power?

Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja

The Nigerian aviation industry made headlines recently, after public outrage and confusion followed the Attorney-General of the Federation’s decision to enter a nolle prosequi to end the controversial case against Comfort Emmanson. Many Nigerians asked: Can the AGF simply call off a prosecution at will?

What is Nolle Prosequi?

Nolle prosequi, a Latin phrase meaning “I do not want to prosecute” or “I do not want to continue to prosecute”, is expressly incorporated into the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

According to Section 174 of the Constitution, the Attorney-General of the Federation may stop a case at any time before judgement, provided the decision is based on public interest and the interest of justice. Similarly, Section 72(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2015 empowers the AG of Lagos State to exercise this power, a position also supported by Section 211(1)(c) of the Constitution.

In Audu v AGF (2013), Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC of the Supreme Court stated that the AG’s discretion unequivocally ends the prosecution of the accused person, but it is not a bar or an acquittal on the merits. Legal critics, however, argue that exercising this power without justice in mind, creates room for abuse.

The Emmanson Case

In Emmanson’s case, critics argue that the withdrawal of prosecution ridicules justice for the cabin crew member. A video widely shared on social media on Sunday, 10 August, shows the female cabin crew member of Ibom Air repeatedly saying, “She is hitting me”. The footage shows her blocking the passenger’s path, with Emmanson struggling to get past her. In the next clip, Emmanson is seen violently attacking Ibom Air staff.

Magistrate Olanrewaju Salami, who presided over the case, appeared convinced that regardless of any provocation, Emmanson bore some responsibility to remain calm and act civilly. This position aligns with Section 252(1) of the Criminal Code, which clearly criminalises violent acts, such as those allegedly displayed towards the cabin crew.

Relevant Aviation Law

Under Section 85(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 2022, a passenger who fails to comply with instructions from the pilot-in-command or a flight crew member, including instructions about mobile phone use, commits an offence known as “interference with crew members”. Ms Emmanson’s alleged conduct, fits squarely within this provision.

Furthermore, Section 35(1)(c) of the Constitution allows any person to effect an arrest when necessary, particularly to prevent someone from committing a crime. In the video, Emmanson appears to go physical with the cabin crew member, and may have been restrained to prevent escalation.

Any gesture, attempt, or threat with clear intent to fight or cause fear is considered assault under Section 252(1) of the Criminal Code Act. This makes Emmanson potentially liable for assault. Critics therefore, argue that the AGF’s decision to discontinue prosecution served no justice, but, rather, obstructed it.

Security Conduct and Legal Limits

However, the conduct of the airline’s security staff, also raises legal concerns. 

They appear to have overstepped legal boundaries under Section 35(1)(c) when restraining Emmanson with what could be tagged, unreasonable force. The act of stripping Emmanson naked further exposes the security staff to this liability, as arrests must be conducted with reasonable force. Section 2(2) of the Anti-Torture Act 2017 recognises stripping and dragging offenders naked, as a form of torture.

Contributory Criminality

Given the multiple elements of potential offences highlighted above, this case illustrates contributory criminality, where both parties’ actions contain elements of criminal liability. Strict application of the law to both sides, could cause more injustice than resolution. This is the possible logic relied on, by defenders of the AGF’s discretionary power to justify discontinuing the prosecution.

What if the Law had been Strictly Applied?

•Against Emmanson: She could have been charged with assault and interference with crew members under the Civil Aviation Act, risking at least two months in prison and/or a N200,000 fine.

•Against Airline Security: She could have claimed damages for unprofessional conduct, deprivation of constitutional rights, and torture under the Anti-Torture Act 2017. Section 8 of the Act makes all who participated in the torture principal offenders, and Section 9 prescribes penalties of up to 25 years’ imprisonment.

•On the other hand, Ibom Air could have petitioned the authorities to prosecute Emmanson for breaching Section 85(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 2022, and for assaulting and intimidating the cabin crew.

Conclusion

Nolle prosequi is a special power of the Attorney-General, that courts and the Police cannot contest. However, the true purpose behind this power, is to de- escalate matters in the public interest and in the interest of justice.

In the Ibom Air case, the strings of criminal liability on both sides point to a deeper problem, Nigeria’s aviation law needs a comprehensive review. Crew and security staff must also undergo retraining in the implementation of the relevant laws, while ensuring compliance to guarantee orderliness and lawful conduct in similar incidents in the future.

Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, Senior Research Fellow, National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS)

Airline Passengers of Domestic Flights in Nigeria and Crew Members’ Legal Compliance

P. D. Pius

Introduction 

We have witnessed a rising incident of domestic air passengers’ unruly behaviour, and crew members’ unprofessional responses to such behaviour in Nigeria in the past weeks. Anyone could have been in the position of Wasiu Ayinde Anifowoshe aka KWAM 1 or Comfort Emmanson, both of whom have made headlines for their behaviour attempting to board and on board a flight, raising legal questions that warrant consideration here. What rules have they violated, and what should be the appropriate sanctions or punishment? The reaction of the airline crew members, has also raised eyebrows. While at it, the Minister of Aviation, Festus Keyamo, SAN, stepped in with the icing on the cake, by pardoning all alleged culprits and directing them to go and sin no more. How legitimate is all of this?

Airline Passengers and Crew’s Obligations 

An airline passenger has, both contractual and statutory duties and obligations, in respect of a flight. Most passengers are not aware of the conditions of carriage, of the particular airline they patronise. The just book, without reading the conditions.Most of these contractual conditions of carriage by air, are similar. 

I will cite a few portions of the Ibom Air Conditions of Carriage (IACC), to drive home the point. IACC states in Article 8.1.3 that they can refuse to carry you, if “Your mental or physical state, including your impairment from alcohol or drugs, presents a hazard or risk to yourself, passengers, crew, or to property”. It further provides in Article 8.1.4 that they can refuse to carry you if “You have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft, or otherwise behaved in a threatening manner”. On use of electronic devices on board a flight, IACC provides in Article 12. 2 that “For safety reasons, we may forbid or limit operation aboard the aircraft of electronic equipment, including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, laptop computers, portable recorders, portable radios, CD players, electronic cigarettes, electronic games or transmitting devices, including radio-controlled toys and walkie-talkies. Operation of hearing aids and heart pacemakers is permitted”. 

You can see that by these contractual conditions of carriage by air, incorporated into your ticket or carriage contract, means that you agree to all these conditions. Hence, you cannot carry into the aircraft any alcohol, or item not approved by the airline carrier. They can limit your usage of your phone by demanding you switch it off. These are contractual obligations; it does not matter whether the electronic device will interfere with the navigation system of the aircraft or not. 

Be that as it may, the Airline and its crew members, have a corresponding duty of care towards their passengers or customers. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Council Act provides the passenger with certain rights such as, proper information on conditions of service in easily comprehensible manner, full disclosure, fair treatment, standard service, and safety.

There are also laws or statutes, that regulate conduct onboard a flight. The Civil Aviation Act 2022 makes room for the operation of Civil Aviation Regulations 2023, Montreal Convention and International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards, particularly Annex 17 concerning aviation security. This has adequate provisions on misconduct on board a flight in various categories including minor disruptions, moderate disruptions, serious disruptions and criminal conduct. Failure to comply with crew instructions like switching off the phone is categorised as minor disruption, unless it will affect the navigation system of the aircraft, or somehow presents a safety concern. Verbal abuse or aggressive language toward crew or passengers, is considered a moderate disruption. Whereas physical confrontations or assault as in the case of both KWAM 1 and Comfort Emmanson, is considered as a serious disruption. What then is the punishment for such behaviour?

Section 85(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 2022 provides that any person who assaults, intimidates, or threatens any flight crew member or flight attendant, or engages in an unruly behaviour onboard an aircraft commits an offence and is liable to fine of N200,000 or imprisonment for at least 2 months or both. Thus, both individuals may be prosecuted, if the authorities decide to do so at any time.  It goes without saying that prosecution can be done anytime, as there is no time limit to when prosecution of criminal cases can be done. If the current Minister of Aviation is able to persuade prosecutorial authorities like the Nigeria Police and/or Attorney-General of the Federation to drop the charges, any subsequent Government that does not agree with such decision may revisit the case files and prosecute them. This should be borne in mind, as the Minster’s intervention is advisory and not conclusive, where prosecutorial authorities decide otherwise.

It is therefore, imperative for both passengers and airlines, to respect the rights and obligations of each other. Exhibiting unruly behaviour onboard a flight, is criminal. Maltreating passengers, violates passengers’ rights as consumers. Exposing a passenger’s privates to the full glare of the world via the internet, is actionable in court and condemnable. The scenario is a case of two wrongs.

P. D. Pius, Legal Practitioner, Abuja 

Ibom Air: Haystack of Voices and Vitriolic Criticisms

Felix Eghie Sugaba

Introduction  

In the wake of the Ibom Air security incident, Nigerians are doing what they do best. The entire space is inundated with tongues of analysis. Some are informed, some uninformed, while others border on mischief and sheer stupidity. More disturbing are voices from Lawyers, who anchor every perspective on legalities. My focus here is what has been aptly termed ‘KWAM 2’, the Comfort Emmanson saga. KWAM 1, of course, is not worth commenting on. It is one of those things, that are better left to take their place in the dustbin of idiocracy.

Eyewitness Account 

My take on KWAM 2 is based solely on the videos therein and the information provided by Lawyer, David Ogebe, a co-passenger who claimed to have witnessed the unfortunate incident. The information he volunteered on Channels TV was detailed and compelling enough to draw conclusions on the incident. However, compelling as his capture of the incident might be, his opinions betrayed his lack of knowledge of Aviation Security.

 Let me say clearly that, the Comfort Emmanson saga had nothing to do with legalities as most Lawyers would have us believe. It was purely an Aviation Security and procedure issue. According to the eyewitness, there were two airline hostesses involved. He noted that the first air hostess who instructed Ms Comfort to put off her phone, was “polite and professional” in her approach. He went further to say that, the second air hostess who intervened afterwards following the passenger’s seeming disobedience to instructions, was “unprofessional” in her altercation with the passenger.

 Permit me to comment on this, before I proceed. None of the Hostesses were unprofessional. They were both following the procedure, in aviation security. The first hostess informed and instructed. In response to the non-compliance of the passenger, the second hostess had to intervene. Please, note that, the second hostess’s duty was to enforce the rule, not to embark on customer relation semantics. In enforcing the rule, the attitude would be different, but surely not unprofessional.This is the standard procedure. Let me emphasise that, in aviation security, Security takes precedence over customer relations, sentiments and rights. The lives of passengers and properties, are at risk.

 It is noteworthy, according to the eyewitness, that the passenger claimed that “the buttons on her phone were not working”. When prompted by the second hostess to go to her phone settings and press general, she scornfully asked the hostess to “spell the word general”. In Aviation security, this passenger’s attitude is regarded as suspicious. It is not glossed over. It is a trigger to deepen the enforcement of the rule. Clearly, the passenger’s behaviour was getting beyond acceptable, and crossing the line into crime.

 Further, according to the eyewitness, the passenger became “simmering and upset throughout the flight”. In other words, she became a nuisance and a distraction to other passengers and crew. This was what prompted the second hostess, to alert the ground security. Again, this is the standard procedure. This explains why she was prevented from disembarking from the aircraft, after landing. The very moment security is alerted, the offending passenger is not allowed to disembark.

 Those who see the incident as a failure of customer service, miss the point completely. This is purely an issue of non-compliance to the rules. The passenger’s initial claim to have put her phone on flight mode, is nonsensical. It is true that in some flights, phones are allowed to be put on flight mode, and in some cases, access the internet. However, most older planes are yet to be fixed with modern gadgets that enhance such luxury. Even at that, rules are rules. Nigerians should be schooled to obey simple rules.

It is unfortunate that, the passenger had to be dragged out of the plane. In the process, her dignity was exposed to ridicule. Once out of the plane, we saw on video how her violence rekindled, assaulting everyone on ground, including security officials. In normal societies, such passengers are handcuffed and taken out of the plane. It is unbelievable that, there was no security official with handcuffs. In the absence of this simple tool of security, Nigeria security officialdom shamelessly danced naked before the entire world.

The incident, simply underscores Nigerians’ penchant for disobedience. This is not an isolated case. It happens daily, on national and international flights. It is a mirror of who we are, and the way we behave. Nigerians would get up from their sits, even as the plane is taxing to the apron. I have personally witnessed such occurring, at MMA in Lagos. The airline crew were completely ignored in their plea to passengers to sit down, until the plane came to a stop.

We have had planes making emergency landing or turning back to their points of departure, due to unruly passengers. Such incidences result in increased operational costs, or image issues for the airline. 

Conclusion 

What is expected of Aviation authorities in Nigeria, is total enforcement of the rules. Perpetrators need to be arrested, and prosecuted. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, those who arrogantly and criminally violate our security are presented with bouquet of flowers, and kissed on both sides of their cheeks by those whose duty it is to protect us.

Felix Eghie Sugaba

The post KWAM 1, Comfort Emmanson, and Lessons for Domestic Airlines appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​