TWO days after an alleged “serious breach” of safety procedures at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) on Thursday, August 7, considered imposing sanctions on popular Fuji musician Wasiu Ayinde, widely known as K1 De Ultimate.
Ayinde had created a scene at the Abuja airport on Tuesday, August 5, when he stood in front of a ValueJet aircraft, preventing it from taxiing, as shown in a video clip.
In a statement on Wednesday, August 6, the NCAA announced that it had taken enforcement action against ValueJet pilots Oluranti Ogoyi and the co-pilot, Ivan Oloba, suspending their licences with immediate effect.
Their offence was commencing departure procedures from the designated bay without adhering to the mandatory pre-departure clearance protocols.
At the same time, no punishment was initially imposed on the musician, who was seen in the video obstructing the aircraft from taxiing on the tarmac. However, following the intervention of the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, on Thursday, the NCAA blacklisted the musician, imposing a six-month ban on flying for his alleged breach of security protocols at the Abuja airport, The ICIR reported.
This has, however, raised legal concerns about the relevant provisions of Section 459A of the Nigerian Criminal Code Act 1990.
It says, “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.”
Keyamo orders ‘no-fly list for Ayinde
The minister, while expressing concern after reviewing video footage of the incident, directed that Wasiu Ayinde be placed on a “no-fly” list pending a full investigation into the matter.
“From all the details so far received, my preliminary impression is that it was a case of temporary loss of sanity and control on both sides, which could have led to serious fatalities.
“Contrary to what the agents of Kwam 1 (Ayinde) have said, he constantly moved his position on the tarmac to block the aircraft from taxiing to take position on the runway for take-off. This is unacceptable behaviour,” Keyamo stated.
He added that whether Ayinde was carrying water or alcohol was irrelevant, stressing instead that his act of physically blocking the aircraft from taxiing was reprehensible and akin to a hostage situation.
He stressed that under no circumstances should the captain or pilot of an aircraft begin to taxi without first ensuring that security personnel have safely removed any unruly passenger standing in front of the aircraft.
“Both sides breached standard safety protocol as required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
Commending the NCAA for suspending the pilots pending a full investigation, the minister nonetheless questioned the fairness of acting against only one party.
“What applies to the goose must also apply to the gander. That is one of the tenets of justice I have preached all my life. I will not sit idly by and allow this to pass,” he said.
Legal interpretation
Speaking with The ICIR on the matter, Justice Ojienoh, a lawyer and partner at Eko Solicitors and Advocates, described the punishment meted out to Ayinde by the NCAA as a “slap on the wrist.” He argued that it should have gone beyond the six-month ban on the musician from commercial flights.
“We have to remember that he is restricted to commercial flights, meaning that he can still use the airways in Nigeria if he is on private flights,” the lawyer noted.
“I think that the punishment should not end with that he should be prosecuted,” Ojienoh suggested.
Ojienoh explained that whether or not Ayinde would be convicted would depend on the interpretation of Section 459A of the Nigerian Criminal Code Act. He said the provision contains an element of the offence stating that, for it to be a crime, the plane must be in motion or in flight.
According to him, the legal argument would centre on whether the aircraft was moving when Ayinde allegedly impeded it, as some may argue that it was stationary. Nevertheless, he stressed that Ayinde’s actions clearly disrupted the normal course of the aircraft.
“I feel that should also be taken into consideration, and I strongly feel that whatever was meted out to him in the light of the’ Do You Know Who I Am Syndrome’, which is getting off very, very light in the country,” Ojienoh pointed out.
He further explained that the law requires the aircraft, in layman’s terms, to be either in motion or in flight before a person can be convicted of impeding it.
“The punishment for it is a maximum of two years,” he emphasised.
Whether Ayinde impeded an aircraft “in motion,” Ojienoh said, is debatable given the facts on the ground.
“We saw that the pilot at some point thrusted the plane forward, but can we even say that while that plane was on the tarmac, it was already in motion.
“We don’t have videos of where the plane originated from, whether it has moved for five minutes before planning to taxi into the air, or we may not be able to say that for now,” Ojienoh said.
He believes that further investigation would clarify these facts, after which it would be possible to determine whether Ayinde breached the elements of the crime.
“This is because we must remember that crimes and criminalities are not emotional issues; they are legislative issues,” Ojienoh explained.
According to him, once the elements of the crime are clearly spelt out in law and the facts confirm that those elements were met, then a conviction should follow.
He also remarked that the broader implication of the musician’s misconduct could send a warning to the elitist “Do you know who I am” class in Nigeria.
“I don’t think the ‘Do you know who I am’ will want to try this again because of consequences and disaster it can have, at least, on their image, even though we are not very sure that at the end of the day, the people who placed this ban on Ayinde will enforce it,” Ojienoh expressed.
He suggested that the NCAA could later claim that its investigation revealed otherwise and reverse the six-month sanction.
“We may not be able to know whether, at some point, they may still let him fly. Well, people like you [journalist] are there to ensure that the reportage gets to us.
“The Oshiomhole saga that too is still lingering, not too long ago, is still the ‘Do You Know Who I Am Syndrome. That is a huge problem that we are facing in this country,” Ojienoh added.
What ICAO Annexe 17 says
According to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Annex 17 provides for the safeguarding of international civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference.
In a statement on Thursday, the NCAA noted that Nigeria’s civil aviation regulations are designed to implement ICAO Annexe 17 standards.
“Deliberately preventing or disrupting a flight operation—even by a passenger—is automatically treated as unlawful interference and falls within terrorism offences by law,” it stated.
The Authority further cited Section 83 of the Civil Aviation Act (2022), which it said deals with hijacking and interference.
“It criminalised acts such as unlawfully seizing or exercising control of an aircraft, etc. That would include any passenger’s attempt to stop a plane from flying.
“Part 17 of the NCAA Regulations 2023 also sets the framework under which such acts are treated as terrorism-related offences,” the NCAA added.
Stakeholders reaction
A former financial secretary of the National Union of Air Transport Employees (NUATE), Fatal Afolabi, believes the ValueJet pilots were penalised by the NCAA for compromising safety procedures, although the incident was provoked by a recalcitrant passenger, KWAM 1 (Ayinde)
“First of all, AVSEC operatives (Aviation Security) erred by watching or allowing a passenger who was not cleared and carrying an illegal liquid substance to go as far as the boarding area on the tarmac.
“The Passenger was seen to be unruly and wanting to delay the flight to display big man syndrome,” Afolabi said
He noted that the pilot also erred by compromising safety procedures in his/her response.
“Two wrongs do not amount to a right. Imagine if the guy or any of the ground staff had been hit by the wing of the aeroplane, the way we saw them escape in the video. Nobody would believe the real story anymore,” Afolabi stressed.
He insisted that the passenger still needs to be penalised, as obstructing an aircraft on the tarmac is an offence.
“Even the MD of ValueJet, Captain Majekodunmi, himself being an experienced Pilot, would not dispute the fact that the action of the pilot, though provoked, was unprofessional,” Afolabi added.
A retired Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) staff member, Olayinka Abioye, said the full details would only emerge after the ongoing investigation.
Notwithstanding, he argued that the pilots made a hasty and unsafe decision to commence taxiing while personnel were still close to the aircraft, in violation of extant regulations and safety protocols.
He also questioned how Ayinde was allowed onto the tarmac with a flask containing liquid, calling it “a serious breach” that raised doubts about the conduct of the security personnel at the screening point.
“What were they thinking? Were they compromised in any way, or did they act innocently but foolishly because of the fellow being a music star?
“I would have expected the airline security to draw the attention of FAAN Avsec to remove the passenger from the foot of the aircraft, and if he refused, he could have been bundled, but he was left somehow,” Abioye shared his concern.
He urged the NCAA to conduct due diligence, sanction the musician adequately, and ensure he is arrested and prosecuted to deter future incidents.
“Any security personnel found culpable in the matter should also be disciplined by FAAN, as no responsible organisation can allow this dastardly matter to demean the image that they are trying to build,” Abioye added.
Security and Public Affairs Analyst Senator Iroegbu described the NCAA’s temporary suspension of the pilots’ licences as a prudent measure to prioritise safety and allow for a thorough investigation.
He stressed that, given the potential risks involved, it was essential to prioritise caution and investigate the incident thoroughly.
“The suspension is a necessary step to avoid a repeat of such action and guarantee the safety of lives on board and the ground in case of a similar situation.
“While the pilot may have had valid reasons for their actions, safety protocols are in place to prevent accidents, and adherence to these rules is crucial,” Iroegbu said.
He urged that the pilots be given a fair hearing and that the suspension be lifted if they are not found guilty or replaced with lighter sanctions depending on the severity of the offence.
On the musician’s role, Iroegbu said the NCAA’s primary concern should be ensuring safety, and KWAM 1’s actions, as captured in the video, posed a significant threat to passengers and airport staff.
“While I understand that the musician may have felt aggrieved, taking the law into his own hands was not the most civil approach. There are better ways to resolve disputes, especially for public figures like KWAM 1.
“Legally, his actions could be considered a nuisance and endangerment, potentially warranting prosecution,” Iroegbu said.
Iroegbu urged the NCAA to focus on strict adherence to regulations and take appropriate action against anyone who compromises aviation safe
What some Nigerians feel about the issue
On X, some Nigerians shared their opinions on the incident.
In a post, Jacob Dumudje argued that the people most at fault were the passenger and the officers who allowed Ayinde to remain in the path of the aircraft.
“It’s difficult for a pilot in the cockpit to see a person standing in that position. I hope they finish the investigation and let the pilot continue to do his thing,” Dumudje said.
Another X user, @Green_Lover5, responded, “You’re right, but which Law permitted a pilot to taxi towards the runway at such high speed without any directive signs from ground staff and why would a pilot proceed to take off knowing that a nuisance is obstructing the aircraft at right of way without waiting for security to eject him?”
Kayode Adeniyi, another X user, rejected claims that the incident amounted to terrorism.
“You are not right about the terrorism claim. The act of the pilots indicates intent to kill (attempted murder), coupled with no clearance to proceed. The big question is, ‘How did the K1 board with unauthorised items?’ This shows negligence and gross misconduct from the airline.”
