THE recent incidents of passengers’ unruly behaviour and airport crew’s negligence on safety protocols have again spotlighted how Nigeria’s justice system favours social standing, with weightier sanctions on an average Nigerian.

Instances abound where Nigeria’s justice system glaringly favours Nigerians with higher social standing getting a tap on the wrist, while others with lower social standing get weightier sanctions for violating the law.

Nigeria’s justice system has been criticised for promoting favouritism, particularly toward the wealthy and powerful. There’s also a notable lack of trust in the legal system among Nigerians, leading some to seek redress through the court of public opinion instead of formal institutions.

Here are some instances to see where social standing influences Nigeria’s justice system;

Davido versus Raye on breach of the NYSC rule

Recently, the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) punished a serving corps member, Ushie Rita Uguamaye, a.k.a Raye, for going against its rule.

Rita was said to have been sanctioned for failing to attend the April 2025 biometrics clearance, a decision that aligns with the NYSC Bye-Laws. Her service year was therefore extended by two months.

This has elicited public criticism from both local and international bodies, including Amnesty International.

It had drawn a parallel on how the NYSC acted in a similar breach of its rule by David Adeleke, popularly known as Davido, in August 2018.

The pop star was among the 2,152 Batch ‘B’ Stream 2 corps members sworn in at the NYSC orientation camp, Iyana Ipaja, Lagos State.

Besides arriving at the camp in an official vehicle,  Davido did not fully observe the mandatory three-week orientation programme before jetting out of the country to perform at a concert.

His actions violated the code of conduct rule in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Bye-Laws (Revised 2011), specifically rules 3 and 15, respectively.

By the rules, Davido should have been decamped and required to join the next batch for the orientation exercise. That, however, was not applied in his case, pointing to how the justice system is served when influential people are involved.

Lawyers say this is a breach of section 17 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Nigeria, which provides that every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law.

Policeman versus Okoya’s son on naira abuse

Earlier this year, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) avoided prosecuting two sons of Razaq Okoya, the chairman of Eleganza Group of companies, caught abusing the naira notes in a viral video.

While the NPF shared that a policeman captured close to the Okoya sons was detained for disciplinary action, nothing was said of the steps taken against the Okoya’s sons at the time, pointing to how the laws in Nigeria are often skewed against the poor, thus favouring the wealthy and affluent.

But Section 21(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act 2007 states that spraying of, dancing or stepping on the Naira or any note issued by the Bank during social occasions or otherwise constitutes an abuse and defacing of the Naira.

In handling the matters, the Federal Government and its agencies were knocked for their reactions, raising concern about how it applies the law to ordinary Nigerians and differently to influential people in the same or similar circumstances.

Kwam1 versus Emmason on unruly behaviours at the airport 

On August 5, a Nigerian popular Fuji musician, Wasiu Ayinde, widely known as K1 De Ultimate or Kwam1, exhibited unruly behaviour when he refused to obey boarding rules and subsequently attempted to stop a ValueJet aircraft from taxiing on the tarmac at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja.

He was also accused of carrying a flask containing a liquid, suspected to be alcohol, of which the aviation rule provides that carriage of liquids, aerosols and gels on an aircraft must be in a container not bigger than 100 millilitres and put in a transparent plastic bag that must be submitted for screening and approval by cabin crew.

The pilot, Oluranti Ogoyi, and the co-pilot, Ivan Oloba, were immediately sanctioned for neglecting safety protocols. But for public outcry, the popular musician was placed on a no-fly list for six months, two days after the incident.

His action violated the Nigerian Criminal Code Act 1990, Section 459A, which provides that:

“Any person who, by any unlawful act, obstructs, causes an alteration to be made in the course of or in any way whatsoever hinders or impedes the movement of any aircraft, which is in motion on or in flight over any aerodrome, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.”

On Sunday, August 10, a passenger, Comfort Emmanson, had a similar occurrence with Ibom Air hostesses when the lady allegedly refused to switch off her phone or put it in flight mode. This led to manhandling her after she engaged in a violent confrontation with the aircraft hostesses and security officials at the Lagos Airport.

In a swift reaction, the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON), an umbrella body for Nigerian airlines, placed her on an indefinite no-fly list across all member carriers. Consequently, she was arrested, remanded to the Kirikiri Correctional Centre, and arraigned at an Ikeja Magistrate’s Court in Lagos.

However, the incident sparked heated debate as Nigerians drew comparisons to Ayinde’s episode.

Extant laws, unruly behaviour, breach of safety protocols

While many concerned Nigerians have queried the selective application of justice in the recent aviation incidents and how it speaks well of the Nigerian justice system, below are a few provisions related to the incidents.

The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) law, Civil Aviation Act 2022, provides penalties for breach of the Aviation rules. Section 45 provides sanctions on security checks of passengers and baggage; section 75 on trespass on aerodromes; section 83 on hijacking and interference; section 81on dangerous flying; and section 85 on interference with crew members.

An aviation security expert, John Ojikitu, told The ICIR that the contravention of the laws and elite favouritism and preference did not start today and exposes the country to higher aviation risk exposure.

“It did not start with the woman on Ibom Air, nor K1, nor did it begin with the former Governor, now Senator Oshiomole. The record showed that the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria and the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) will show that it has always been there especially with political office holders,”Ojikitu said.

Undermining of the justice system

This has been a major concern when the arm of the law is wielded against offenders. According to a human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, the government is seen as undermining its moral authority to prosecute unruly air passengers as its decision to pardon Ayinde sets a dangerous precedent.

“By this 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,” the renowned senior advocate said.

He sees the withdrawal of charges against Emmanson — accused of unruly behaviour on an Ibom Air flight — as evidence that the government’s selective handling of such cases risks accusations of discrimination.

“Since citizens have equal rights, obligations, and opportunities before the law, the government will henceforth be accused of discriminatory treatment whenever it prosecutes other passengers for similar conduct,” Falana maintained

The senior advocate believes that pardoning Ayinde without trial contradicts the principle of equal application of the law and erodes public confidence in the justice system.

“I feel that the whole approach in which the matter has been handled so far leaves a lot to be desired from the security standpoint, professionalism standpoint, and most especially from the legal standpoint,” Justice Ojienoh, a legal practitioner, expressed.

Ojienoh, who felt disappointed in how the matters were handled, had earlier shared a legal perspective with The ICIR when the matter unfolded, highlighting what should have been expected under a fair justice system.

But seeing how it later turned out, Ojienoh, a partner at Eko Solicitors and Advocates, said it seems there were various double-dealings on the part of the government.

“They (authorities) first of all went all out against the young woman and walked as fast as the speed of light. It was unbelievable that in a few hours, the lady had already been docked and remanded in prison.

“It looked as though what now made the government have a rethink was the fact that people started drawing parallels between the way the lady was treated and the way Mr Ayinde was treated,” he said.

He struggled not to believe that the double-dealing and double-faced nature of the government was too obvious in balancing the justice system.

“We saw that it was immediately afterwards that (punishing the lady) they extended the punishment for Ayinde from a six-month ban to an indefinite ban.

“We saw again that in less than 24 hours, the government dropped the charges against the lady and also reduced the sentence for King Wasiu Ayinde Marshal and proposed to make him an ambassador,” Ojienoh recounted.

This shows a lot of inconsistencies and loopholes in our justice system, he stressed. “We selectively prosecute our prosecutors, who we want to prosecute and leave out those we do not want to prosecute, especially the Do You Know Who I Am Class.”

“I think that is rather sad for our country and our justice system generally,” he maintained.

Powers of the Attorney General

The Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, was mainly a complainant as he did not have prosecutorial powers in this case. It is the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, who has the powers in such a case, Ojienoh noted.

The aviation minister must have worked in tandem with him because prosecutorial powers, when it comes to federal crime, are jealously warehoused in the office of the Attorney General of the Federation.

“I commend you to the case of State v. Ilori & Ors, where the court said the only limitations to the powers of the Attorney General are the employer, the President, in the case of the Attorney General of the Federation, and public opinion,” Ojienoh explained.

According to him, public opinion is so subjective that the Attorney General can practically decide what it is, and can practically go against it.

“I also commend you to the case of Ezomo v. State,” he added.

Ojienoh reiterated that the aviation minister must have worked in collaboration with the Attorney General for the matter to be withdrawn, stressing that such a state crime requires collaboration before it could be successfully withdrawn from the court.

“When a prosecution tells the court that they are no longer interested in pressing the charges, the necessary action for the court to take is to strike such matter out,” Ojienoh submitted.

Apart from suggestions that airport staff be trained and retrained for them to be seen acting professionally, Ojienoh believes that lawyers must be able to intervene appropriately and conduct a quick investigation and not put the cart before the horse when matters like this come up.

“With these put in place, we already have fantastic laws, local and international, that set restraints and ensure that situations like these do not repeat,” Ojienoh added.