The Best Fluffy Pancakes recipe you will fall in love with. Full of tips and tricks to help you make the best pancakes.
The dictum of Justice Kayode Eso, J.S.C. (as he then was) in the landmark decision of Ransome-Kuti v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1985) comes to mind as it encapsulates the exalted status of human rights within Nigeria’s constitutional framework in relation to what happened between ibom air and her passenger. His Lordship pronounced:
“Fundamental human rights are rights which stand above the ordinary laws of the land and which in fact are antecedent to the political society itself. It is a primary condition to a civilised existence.”
This timeless pronouncement resonates profoundly in the context of the recent incident involving the alleged maltreatment of an Ibom Air passenger.
Justice Eso’s jurisprudential stance underscores that fundamental rights are inviolable, preeminent, and must be jealously guarded—even in circumstances of public disorder, moral outrage, or perceived misconduct by the individual concerned.
Applied to the present matter, Ms. Comfort Emmanson appears to have suffered grave infringements of her constitutionally guaranteed rights under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), notably:
- Right to Fair Hearing – Section 36:
The reported haste in remanding her, without affording her adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence, constitutes a prima facie derogation from due process requirements and offends the audi alteram partem rule. - Right to Dignity of the Human Person – Section 34:
Allegations of public humiliation, including stripping, exposure, and physical rough-handling, are acts that strike at the very heart of human dignity and are wholly irreconcilable with the constitutional and international human rights obligations binding on the Nigerian State.
Moreover, the doctrine of equality before the law—enshrined in Section 42—appears to have been undermined by what is perceived as a selective imposition of extreme sanctions. The disparity between the severity of the measures imposed on Ms. Emmanson and the comparatively lenient treatment accorded to certain high-profile individuals (e.g., KWAM 1, Adams Oshiomhole) calls into question the even-handed administration of justice, contrary to Eso’s implicit insistence on fairness and impartiality.
It would therefore be prudent for Ms. Emmanson to retain a consortium of seasoned human rights practitioners, well-versed in constitutional litigation and international human rights norms. With competent counsel “who know their onions,” the prospects of vindicating her rights and securing adequate remedies would be significantly enhanced.