A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr. Monday Ubani, has condemned the lifetime flight ban imposed on Ms. Comfort Bob by the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON), describing the decision as unconstitutional, unlawful, and a violation of due process.
TheMatrix Newspaper reports that AON slammed an industry-wide lifetime ban on Ms. Bob over her alleged unruly behavior onboard an Ibom Air flight on Sunday, August 10, 2025 from Uyo to Lagos.
Reacting to the ban, Ubani argued that the sanction contravenes Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and Section 41, which safeguards citizens’ freedom of movement within and outside Nigeria.
“The AON’s unilateral action, without affording the passenger an opportunity to be heard, breaches the principle of audi alteram partem. Only the NCAA is empowered to impose such sanctions,” he said.
The SAN explained that while an airline may deny a passenger boarding for safety reasons, a trade association like AON lacks the legal authority to impose an industry-wide lifetime ban. He warned that such action effectively amounts to a de facto travel ban with both national and international implications.
Citing practices in other jurisdictions, Ubani noted that in countries like the United States, no-fly lists are managed by government agencies, subject to statutory regulations, periodic reviews, and appeal mechanisms.
He further stressed that Ms. Bob has been arraigned and remanded pending trial for a bailable offence, making any indefinite industry-wide punishment premature.
Ubani advised that in cases of disruptive conduct, airlines should offload the passenger, report them to Aviation Security and the Nigerian Police, pursue prosecution under the Civil Aviation Regulations or the Criminal Code, and seek a court order if travel restrictions are necessary.
“Allowing a trade association to impose lifetime bans without judicial oversight sets a dangerous precedent for abuse. One party cannot be the accuser, prosecutor, and judge,” he warned.
Ubani concluded that Ms. Bob could challenge the ban at the Federal High Court, seeking a declaration that it is unconstitutional, null, and void, as well as damages for breach of her fundamental rights.
