Fuji maestro Wasiu Ayinde (KWAM 1)’s “Rora Se” reminded his fans to stay calm, avoid unnecessary confrontation, and approach life with patience. The title of the evergreen classic, released in 2013, was coined from a Yoruba term meaning “to act gently.”
But in August 2025, the same artist found himself at the centre of a chaotic scene at Abuja’s Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport. A viral video showed that he resisted security checks on an item supposedly containing alcohol, poured the liquid contents on airline staff, and blocked the Lagos-bound ValueJet flight (VK 201). He threw caution to the wind and disregarded aviation protocols.
Videos on social media showed KWAM 1 attempting to block the plane from taking off before ducking as it departed. While trying to assert his influence, the music legend violated aviation rules, and almost ended his life.
The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, Obiageli Orah, said his actions violated the National Civil Aviation Security Programme (NCASP) and international aviation rules under ICAO Annex 17, which prohibit passengers from carrying liquids exceeding 100 ml through security checkpoints, except declared and medically necessary items.
Petitions were immediately sent to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to prosecute KWAM 1. He was subsequently placed on a no-fly list for all commercial flights, with criminal sanctions expected to follow.
Seeing all the buzz, KWAM 1 resorted to an emotional tactic, issued an apology, and the sanctions gradually faded away.
Five days later, a similar incident occurred, but this time at the Murtala Muhammed Airport (MMA), Lagos.
These incidents highlighted the delicate balance between enforcing aviation safety, ensuring fair treatment, and maintaining public trust.
The system of double standards
Comfort Emmanson was on board an Ibom Air flight from Uyo to Lagos when she had a face-off with members of the cabin crew moments before take-off. The statement released by the airline said Comfort was asked to switch off her phone in line with safety rules, but another passenger eventually turned it off for her, leading to an argument.
According to the airline, the matter was settled, but on landing, she attacked a flight attendant, pulling off her wig and glasses and slapping her several times. She was also accused of trying to grab a fire extinguisher to use as a weapon.
Both the Kwam 1 and Comfort airport altercations threatened aviation safety and breached relevant laws. While Kwam 1 attempted to stop the Lagos-bound ValueJet flight, and Comfort had a direct altercation with members of the Ibom Air cabin crew, what stood out in all of this was the selective judgment.
Kwam 1 was allowed to walk away, and calls for forgiveness were made on his behalf, but Comfort was handed over to the police and subsequently placed on a lifetime flight ban by Ibom Air and the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON).
She was arraigned before the Ikeja Magistrates’ Court in Lagos on criminal charges and remanded at the Kirikiri Correctional Centre after she failed to meet the bail demands. Comfort was released two days later.
This resulted in an uproar from citizens who believed these actions were a power play.
The Court of Public Opinion Wins
Social media users, especially on X, did not hesitate to call out the government and aviation agencies, tagging their actions against Comfort as a case of selective judgment.
Peter Obi, former Governor of Anambra State and 2023 Labour Party Presidential Candidate, who commented about the incident on his X handle, condemned how Comfort was treated by Ibom Air crew members. Obi opined that what happened to Comfort was a case of double standards that “poison our justice system.”
“It is unacceptable that she was hurriedly taken to court and remanded, while someone who visibly held a plane from taking off and put hundreds of lives at risk is still at large, with government agencies and some state officials speaking up for him to be forgiven,” Obi said.
Also, Aisha Yesufu, a human rights activist, noted on her X page that the rule of law should apply to everybody. Referring to the Adams Oshiomhole Air Peace drama and Kwam 1, she said if the offence for going against aviation laws is a remand by the court, it should apply to Kwam 1.
“There is no justice in all of that; selective justice is injustice,” Aisha said.
According to her, their ties with the ruling party and the Nigerian president made them evade the law, unlike Comfort.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also condemned how Comfort’s incident was handled, saying that the actions of Ibom Air and the Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON) were heavy-handed, unlawful, and a grave affront to the rule of law and human dignity.
“The photographing, dissemination, and online circulation of indecent images of Ms. Emmanson is also an egregious invasion of privacy and a criminal act. Even if the incident was to be reported, the footage should have been blurred or edited in such a way that it did not expose her nudity to the public,” NBA said.
NBA noted that it was ready to provide Comfort with pro bono legal support to “ensure her rights are protected and that she obtains redress for the violations suffered.”
Soon, social media intervention changed the tide of Comfort’s case. These efforts placed both the airline and the judiciary under public scrutiny. By August 13, just two days after her remand, the charges against Comfort were withdrawn and dismissed in court.
Both actions breached Nigerian laws
The Civil Aviation Act 2022 is clear about offences that threaten safety at the airport or onboard an aircraft. Both KWAM 1 and Comfort violated this Act.
Section 45 (1) states that no person shall engage in any act that endangers the safety or security of an aircraft or airport. Violating this section attracts a fine of not less than ₦2 million or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. Looking at the recent airport incidents, KWAM 1’s decision to disrupt operations on the tarmac and Comfort’s violent actions onboard both fell under this law.
Section 75 of the Act speaks directly to unruly passengers. It says that anyone who assaults, intimidates, or disrupts crew members or passengers can face imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of at least ₦500,000, or both. Comfort’s and KWAM 1’s cases fit perfectly here.
Furthermore, Section 81 criminalises interference with crew members in the course of duty, prescribing up to 2 years imprisonment, or a fine not less than ₦1 million. Both Comfort and KWAM 1 are in clear violation of this section.
Section 83 goes further by addressing violence at airports and on aircraft, with punishments ranging from ₦2 million fines to imprisonment of up to 5 years, depending on the severity. Comfort’s violent actions fall here, while KWAM 1’s obstruction on the runway also threatened safe operation, making him liable under this law.
Section 85 ties all these together by setting out the penalties and enforcement measures, allowing regulators to prosecute offenders, impose fines, or ban them from flying. This explains why Comfort has already been charged to court and remanded in Kirikiri Prison.
Also, Section 459A, Cap 83, deals specifically with interference with aircraft equipment or safety measures. It provides for imprisonment of up to 14 years if a person tampers with equipment or engages in conduct likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft. This was the case with KWAM 1.
David Isaac, a lawyer who spoke to Within Nigeria, said that contrary to popular belief, the law was not quickly applied in Comfort’s case compared to KWAM 1’s. According to him, the reason Comfort was arrested and charged to court was because of the decision of Ibom Air to prosecute.
He said that the decision to prosecute lies solely with the airline, and not even the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority, whose duty is to regulate aviation activities and provide a framework.
“Where an offence is committed, it is the complainant who initiates the report. It is upon the complainant reporting and showing willingness to prosecute that the law will be set in motion. In the case of Comfort, Ibom Air took steps, went and reported to the police, and indicated interest in prosecuting her. That immediately brought about her being arraigned in court and kept in custody, unlike the KWAM 1 case.
“In the KWAM 1 case, the matter may have been reported, but we don’t know the reasons for the delay. Yes, if they choose not to prosecute, in that case, you cannot push for it. And I don’t think it has anything to do with his status. Basically, where an offence is committed, as is the case here, it boils down to the desire of the person who is offended to take steps or not.”
David, however, said that when high-profile individuals are allowed to flout aviation safety regulations without punishment, it results in lawlessness and would lead to more people going against aviation protocols.
According to him, if this happens, then the aviation laws are nothing short of a “paper-tiger”
‘The danger, of course, is that this will result in lawlessness as far as aviation guidance and compliance with the rules of aviation are concerned. This is especially so as prospective customers in the aviation sector may want to flout the rules because they know there may be no consequences for their actions.
“By so doing, aviation regulation will become nothing short of a paper tiger. We know that the essence of compliance cannot be overemphasised. That is why, where there is no compliance in certain aspects of activities in society, the law provides for punishment,” he said.