Emmanson V Ibom Air: Whose Rights Prevail?

On the 10th day of August 2025, a horrible and disheartening incident occurred where a lady, by the name Comfort Emmanson, was alleged to have assaulted a crew member of IBOM AIR. The action, which IBOM officials tagged “unruly” and contrary to Nigerian Civil Aviation regulations, led to the imposition of a “no-fly” ban on her and the tearing of her shirt, resulting in public humiliation.

However, a question begs for an answer: whether the public humiliation and stripping of Comfort breached her rights. Despite Comfort clearly breaching the Civil Aviation Act and rules, does she still retains her right to human dignity and protection from torture?

Indeed, based on the provision of the Civil Aviation Act, 2023, that the management of an airline has the power to regulate its airline to promote safety and security (see Section 61 of the Act). The power of the authority to regulate any “unruly” behavior extends to making calls and using mobile devices while passengers are onboard. Any passenger who breaches this commits an offense

According to the Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations 2015, Part 17, Regulation 17.79, “Any passenger who becomes unruly at the airport terminal or on board an aircraft commits an offense.” The provision further defines “unruly” to include disorderly fighting, use of mobile phones or communication gadgets, acts that constitute a nuisance, or endangering flight security, and disobedience to instructions from aircraft command, flight crew, or cabin attendants.

Therefore, it is correct and factual that Ms. Comfort refused to switch off her phone when asked to do so by the crew members, which is a clear violation of the civil aviation regulations. Equally, Section 85(1)(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2023 say anyone who interferes with a crew member onboard an aircraft, impeding their duties, commits an offence.

The cited section provides  that :

(1) Whoever while onboard an aircraft, interferes with a crew member and such interference impedes the performance of the crew member’s duties, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N200,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least two months or both.

(2) Any person who, assaults, intimidates, or threatens any flight crew member or flight attendant, including any steward or stewardess of such aircraftWhoever while onboard an aircraft, interferes with a crew member and such interference impedes the performance of the crew member’s duties, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N200,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least two months or both..

From the available video footage online, it is evidently clear that Ms. Comfort assaulted one of the crew members by slapping her on the cheek and grossly interfered with their duties by refusing to comply with instructions , thus  violating this provision.

However, two mistakes can not make right. Thus, can this provision override Comfort Emmanson’s right to human dignity and protection from torture? The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right to dignity of every person, and Comfort Emmanson is not an exception.

Section 34(1) provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. This provision ensures that even if a person (suspect) commits a crime, they must be accorded humane treatment and their right to human dignity protected.

In the video, Ms. Emmanson was seen being dragged and treated with contempt and denigration by the flight security. The unlawful act that led to the exposure of her breast is a clear violation of her constitutional right.

A combined reading of section 34 with section 1 of the 1999 constitution which provide that :

it will be reveal that

Under Nigerian law, any act of torture is forbidden, including inflicting shame by stripping a person naked or parading them in a public place.  See Section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017) which provides that :” inflicting shame by stripping a person naked, parading him in a public place, shaving his head or putting marks on his body against his will” is an act of torture which is penally prohibited in Nigeria pursuant the this Act.

It is settled that, by the provision of Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution which provudes that “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”  constitutional provisions are supreme in Nigeria and override any other provision of existing law, including the Civil Aviation Act and Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations( see generally section 1(1)(3) of 1999 constitution)

The disregard of Emmanson’s constitutional right by the IBOM AIR security personnel is a clear disobedience to the honorable letters of our sacred law, and she can sue the company for compensatory damages in line with Section 46 of the CFRN.

The Civil Aviation Act, under Section 85(4), mandates the Air Commander to ensure reasonable safety measures are taken when faced with unruly passenger behavior. The section says:”The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall take such reasonable measures as may be necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft and security of passengers on board whenever he is faced with an unruly passenger behavior…”

The question is, looking at the social and cultural norms in Nigeria, is stripping a woman of her shirt in public “reasonable”? The answer is unequivocally no!

Moreover, the imposition of the “no-fly” punishment on Ms. Emmanson is not provided under the Nigerian Civil Aviation Act. The Act only provides for a person who becomes “unruly” a fine of N200,000 and not more than two months’ imprisonment under Section 84(1).Thus, the sanction is not envisaged by the law.

Although, the Act empowered the Authority of Aviation to do anything incidental to their job in order to ensure security and safety, and in doing such they are not subject to  or bound by any decision, recommendation of any person,body or organization. This is  pursuant to section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act. Can we say Aviation Authorities are not bound by the Nigerian courts decision and thus making the “no-fly” sanction lawful.

The answer can not be positive, because the framers of the 1999 constitution are not foolish or foolhardy enough to empower an authority whose decision can override the power of courts and/or enact a law that can override the constitutional provision. Constitutionally, she has right  to move freely in Nigeria and therefore, such  right is above the sanction of the Aviation Authorities.

Lastly, it is lawful based on the Civil Aviation Regulations that using phones is unlawful, and it is equally constitutional that Ms. Emmanson has a constitutional right to human dignity and respect; the right that overrides any Civil Aviation provision, thus, the right of Emmason’s to human dignity  prevails.

---

About Author