ON August 10, 2025, Comfort Emmanson’s journey from Cross River to Lagos aboard an Ibom Air flight turned into a national scandal. After she allegedly refused to switch off her mobile phone, the confrontation intensified and ended with her being forcibly removed from the aircraft, an incident caught on video and widely shared online.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and several Nigerians condemned the airline’s actions as “reckless” and a breach of her dignity, vowing to provide Emmanson with pro bono legal representation.
A Lagos-based public-interest lawyer, Ayodele Ademiluyi, filed a N500 billion suit some days later at the Federal High Court against the Federal Government, the NCAA and others, framing it as a challenge to “aviation impunity.” However, Emmanson herself denied any affiliation with the lawsuit or that she had filed such a claim.
What are public interest lawsuits?
A human and civil rights lawyer Ofen-Imu Gabriel Uzuanje, said that public interest lawsuit is a legal action initiated in a court of law for the primary interest of the public, whether pecuniary, social, customary, political or otherwise.
“In Nigeria, public interest litigation is a tool used to address issues that affect the public at large, such as environmental degradation, human rights violations, and corruption. The primary aim is to ensure that the rights of the public are protected and that justice is served in matters that affect the designated segment of society.
“It empowers citizens and organisations to hold the government and other entities accountable for actions that harm the public interest. It is an avenue for judicial activism and one that helps to develop legal jurisprudence,” he said.
Referencing the case of Adesanya v. President of the FRN & ANOR (1981) LPELR-147(SC), Uzuanje explained that the case was the basis of the principle of locus standi (right to sue) which is a critical aspect of public interest litigation.
“The Court held that a general public interest is not a litigable interest that can ground locus standi, emphasising the need for a plaintiff/claimant to demonstrate a special or sufficient interest in the matter. Only those who were directly affected by a legal issue could bring a case to court.”
According to the lawyer, locus standi is a traditional and basic requirement in litigation.
“To establish standing, a claimant or plaintiff must demonstrate a “sufficient, direct, and personal interest” in the matter, often by showing they have suffered special damage over and above that suffered by the general public. Under this view, someone without a direct, personal injury would be considered a “meddlesome interloper” or “busy body,” he added.
He also maintained that Nigeria, like many other legal systems, have moved toward a more liberal and expansive approach to public interest litigation.
“This allows public-spirited individuals, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), or associations, to bring actions on behalf of others, or for the public interest. Public interest is a matter of public policy, shaped by factors such as socio, economic, political, customary and societal interest amongst others,” he explained.
Referring to the case of Fawehinmi v. Akilu [1987] 4 NWLR (PART67) 797, he added that, “This is particularly important in cases where the affected parties are marginalised or lack the resources to pursue legal action”, Uzuanje added.
The Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure, Rules (FREP) 2009, brings in a statutory flavour to this liberalised requirement (amongst others) for locus standi in human rights cases. The FREP allows the following to bring human rights applications: Anyone acting in their own interest; anyone acting on behalf of another person; anyone acting in the interest of a group or class of persons; anyone acting in the public interest; an association acting in the interest of its members or others.
Interpretation of locus standi in recent years
The case of Adesanya v. President of the FRN & ANOR (1981) LPELR-147(SC), stated the traditional position while the Fawehinmi v. Akilu [1987] 4 NWLR (PART67) 797, brought in the liberal position, that a person or organisation can sue on behalf of others even though they have no direct standing.
In Centre for Oil Pollution Watching v. NNPC [2018] LPELR 50830- SC, 98 – 112 PARAS F – F case, the Supreme Court held that any person acting genuinely in the public interest can maintain an environmental-related lawsuit without necessarily proving a personal injury.
In the case of FOI enforcement on recovered assets (SERAP v. CCB & FG, FHC Lagos, 2020), the Federal High Court ordered authorities to disclose and widely publish details of recovered stolen assets and their spending since 1999, vindicating the public’s right to know. Monetary damages weren’t the point; the public gained information and oversight power.
Similarly, the Twitter ban ruled unlawful (ECOWAS Court, 14 July 2022) in a suit led by SERAP and others, the regional court held Nigeria’s seven-month Twitter suspension violated freedom of expression, ordering non-repetition and aligning state policy with rights another non-monetary, society-wide win flowing from public-interest litigation.
The case of Okafor & ORS v. Nwora & ANOR [2022] LPELR-58681(CA), where the Court held that an action under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, cannot be defeated on the grounds of lack of locus standi.
The case of AG of the Federation v. AG of Abia State & ORS (2024) LPELR-62576(SC), the Supreme Court discussed the locus standi of the Attorney-General in public interest litigation, highlighting the role of the Attorney-General in safeguarding public interest. The beneficiaries of such judgments are the citizens whose rights are protected by the enforcement of public laws.
In Adedeji & ORS V. CBN & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57809(SC), the Court held that judgments in suits filed in a representative capacity ensures to all parties whether named or not, thereby benefiting all members of the represented group.
In Ekpoke & ANOR V. USILO & ORS (1978) LPELR-1097(SC), the Supreme Court expanded the doctrine of Estoppel to hold that it ensure that judgments in public interest suits are binding on parties who were not directly involved in the litigation but are affected by the outcome.
“As we speak today, one Ayodele Ademiluyi Esquire has recently filed a suit out of the “KWAM1” incident, to challenge the Federal Government on the issue of air passenger treatments and rights.
“This would be another opportunity for the courts to further develop the law. Hereunder are a few of several cases that have upheld this position in recent times,” Uzuanje said.
Ibom Air case
The ICIR reported that the suit number FHC/L/CS/1632/25, targets the FG, NCAA, FAAN, Ibom Air, ValueJet, and others, was based on what Ademiluyi described as a “blatant breach of the rule of law” and “unequal treatment” by aviation authorities. It addressed two separate but controversial incidents involving an Ibom Air passenger, Emmanson, and Fuji musician, King Wasiu Ayinde Marshal (Kwam 1).
Uzuanje explained that the suit alleged impunity and double standard, while Emmanson faced immediate arrest, arraignment, and a travel ban, while KWAM 1, allegedly received preferential treatment.
“In the KWAM 2 CASE, the main actor was arrested and instantly detained. There were issues of wrongful handling of this case. The outcry of the media (particularly social media) turned the tide. It was at this point that the Federal Government took a position on the issue.
“The KWAM2 CASE was what woke the Federal Government up to action. And now, the question is, were the actions taken in line with the laws? These, I humbly think, are the reasons for the Ayodele’s suit on public interest grounds for the safety of air passengers, and proper regulation and enforcement of the aviation laws for the good of all,” he said.
Who benefits from awards in public interest lawsuits?
He explained that the suit was not at the instance of Emmanson and for her.
“Should the case fail, she has nothing to lose, and should it succeed, she might receive compensation,” he said.
The human rights lawyer said that the proceeds of the judgment are in two folds.
“First is the cost of litigation and the compensatory award/claims. The cost which involves the legal fees, expenses, logistics and cost in general will be for the lawyer and the process of prosecuting the suit.
“On the other hand, the compensatory awards/claims for the victims and affected groups. This may be in peculiar terms or declaratory relief and material awards,” he said.
Public, systemic benefits
“its main beneficiaries are those who are considered the average Nigerian. It is a vital instrument for promoting justice, accountability, and social change in Nigeria. It empowers citizens to actively participate in the democratic and legal process, making room to hold authorities accountable, thereby strengthening the rule of law and democratic governance,” he explained.
The human rights lawyer noted that the suit is supported by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in Sections 174(3) and 211(3), which emphasise the Attorney-General’s duty to consider public interest in legal proceedings.
“This is the reason Ademiluyi can file the N500 billion suit,” he added.
The ICIR reports that the court rulings of Ademiluyi’s case can drive institutional changes, aviation procedure reviews, and regulatory oversight.
As a high-profile case, it will also raise awareness, embolden citizens to demand better governance.
Nanji is an investigative journalist with the ICIR. She has years of experience in reporting and broadcasting human angle stories, gender inequalities, minority stories, and human rights issues. She has documented sexual war crimes in armed conflict, sex for grades in Nigerian Universities, harmful traditional practices and human trafficking.