Ubani SAN Questions Legality of AON’s Lifetime Airline Ban on Emmanson
The Airline Operators of Nigeria’s decision to impose a lifetime industry-wide ban on Ms. Comfort Emmanson, accused of unruly behaviour on an Ibom Air flight, has ignited a fierce legal and constitutional debate.
In a detailed statement, Senior Advocate of Nigeria and public commentator Dr. M.O. Ubani argued that the AON’s measure raises serious concerns over due process, fairness, and the limits of statutory authority.
The controversy comes amid a surge in disruptive conduct on domestic flights. Notably, Fuji musician Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (also known as Kwam 1) was reportedly placed on a six-month no-fly list by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority and the Minister of Aviation, a sanction well within the regulator’s remit, unlike the AON’s blanket lifetime ban.
Dr. Ubani points out that Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every individual the right to a fair hearing before any decision affecting their rights is made. By imposing a permanent travel restriction without first offering Ms. Emmanson the opportunity to be heard, the AON is said to have breached the principle of audi alteram partem.
He further cites Section 41 of the Constitution, which protects every citizen’s freedom of movement, including travel within Nigeria and abroad. A permanent, industry-wide ban enforced by a trade association effectively amounts to a de facto national travel ban—an action that, in his view, requires judicial sanction.
Under the Civil Aviation Act, the NCAA is the sole regulator empowered to enforce aviation safety measures. While individual airlines may deny carriage to disruptive passengers under contractual terms, the rules do not grant the AON authority to impose indefinite sanctions across all carriers.
Even in jurisdictions with strict no-fly lists, such as the United States, those lists are administered by government agencies under clear statutory frameworks and include mechanisms for review and appeal. According to Dr. Ubani, a lifetime ban without any possibility of review or prior court conviction is disproportionate and excessive.
Ms. Emmanson is currently on trial and has yet to be convicted of any offence. Dr. Ubani warns that allowing a trade association to act as accuser, investigator, judge, and executioner sets a dangerous precedent. Disputed facts, including alleged provocation, should be resolved through police investigation and the courts.
Dr. Ubani concludes that the AON’s lifetime ban on Ms. Emmanson is “contestable and potentially unlawful,” violating the principles of natural justice, constitutional freedom of movement, and proportionality in sanctions. He suggests that a passenger in her position could approach the Federal High Court for a declaration that the ban is unconstitutional and void, and might even claim damages for breach of fundamental rights.
