Due Process, Regulatory Boundaries, and the No Fly Directive: A Cautionary Perspective

The recent directive by the Honourable Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, SAN, to the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) to place popular musician Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (KWAM 1) on a no fly list has stirred significant public interest and debate.

While the Minister’s concerns regarding safety and decorum at airports are understandable, the legal and procedural implications of such a directive deserve closer scrutiny within the boundaries of our aviation laws and constitutional framework.

There are footages of the incident circulating, and I am not here to defend the alleged culprit. The conduct of all citizens regardless of status must align with established public safety and aviation security standards. However, this principle must be balanced by an unwavering commitment to due process, particularly when a person’s rights are at stake.

Under the Civil Aviation Act 2022, the NCAA is established as an autonomous regulatory body empowered to investigate infractions, enforce safety protocols, and where necessary impose sanctions. These powers are not to be exercised at the discretion of political officeholders but within the confines of the law and administrative fairness.

Although the Honourable Minister has oversight responsibilities and the power to issue policy directives, operational decisions such as placing individuals on a no fly list fall squarely within the statutory duties of the NCAA. A directive that appears to sidestep an independent investigation or fair hearing, even if well-intentioned, risks undermining the regulatory independence of the NCAA and raises questions of legality.

Moreover, placing a citizen on a no fly list even temporarily touches on the constitutional right to freedom of movement as provided in Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution. Any interference with that right must be legally justified, procedurally fair, and free from executive overreach. Anything less opens the door to arbitrariness and weakens the public’s trust in our institutions.

The NCAA’s recent call on the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute KWAM 1 further underscores the seriousness of the matter. This move brings the dispute into the formal legal arena where allegations can be examined through established judicial processes. It also reinforces the principle that sanctions affecting individuals’ rights should be supported by substantive legal proceedings rather than administrative fiat.

With due respect to the Minister’s distinguished position as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, this incident serves as a reminder that executive authority must always respect the limits set by statute and the Constitution. Regulatory bodies like the NCAA must function independently, without undue pressure, and in strict accordance with the law.

Where conduct breaches legal or safety standards, sanctions should follow but only after transparent investigation and compliance with the due process to which every Nigerian is entitled. That is the hallmark of a functional democracy and the rule of law.

By : Dr. Michael Tidi Esq.

The writer is a legal practitioner with an interest in administrative law, regulatory governance, and constitutional compliance.

×