The Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of Enugu State House of Assembly, Dr. Josef Onoh has criticized the appointment of Wasiu Ayinde Marshal, popularly known as KWAM 1, as an airport security protocol ambassador by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

KWAM1?s appointment came shortly after he caused security breach at the Nnamdi Azikwe International Airport Abuja on his scheduled flight to Lagos.

Flaying the appointment, Onoh said that it was a misguided decision that undermines aviation safety, damages Nigeria?s international reputation, and sets a dangerous precedent by rewarding misconduct.

He noted that KWAM 1?s involvement in a serious incident on August 5, 2025, at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, where he allegedly carried a prohibited flask, spilled its contents on a personnel, and obstructed a ValueJet aircraft from taxiing, was a clear violation of aviation security protocols.

?Therefore, appointing him as an ambassador for airport security sends a message to the international community that Nigeria is lenient with breaches of aviation safety, potentially eroding trust in its aviation sector. This could lead to scrutiny from international aviation bodies like the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which emphasizes strict adherence to safety and security standards.?

He said that Nigerians and beyond were already of the opinion that the actions of the government is more aligned with Perception of Favoritism and Lack of Accountability because the decision to reduce KWAM 1?s six-month flight ban to one month and his appointment as an ambassador, despite his actions, reinforces a global perception of Nigeria as a nation where celebrity status and influence can override accountability.

?This could further damage Nigeria?s reputation, already challenged by criticisms of current governance and institutional integrity, suggesting a pattern of rewarding controversial figures with prestigious roles instead of enforcing consequences.?

He reminded the minister for Aviation, Festus Keyamo that internationally, Nigeria?s aviation sector is under scrutiny to meet global standards, and that appointing someone recently involved in a security breach to promote proper conduct risks being viewed as a publicity stunt rather than a genuine commitment to reform.

?This could lead to skepticism from foreign travelers, airlines, and investors about Nigeria?s seriousness in upholding aviation security, potentially impacting tourism and economic partnerships.?

Onoh went further to provide grounds for questioning KWAM 1?s Moral Character: ?Being a celebrity and a frequent flyer, KWAM 1?s actions?carrying a prohibited flask, spilling its contents on airport personnel, and obstructing an aircraft?demonstrate a disregard for aviation safety protocols. Such behavior in a sensitive area like an airport tarmac, where strict adherence to rules is critical, raises questions about his judgment and suitability to represent security standards.?

Onoh said that while KWAM 1 issued a public apology, claiming the flask contained water for medical purposes, his initial actions suggest a lack of respect for authority and protocol, noting that the apology, issued only after public backlash and a flight ban, appears reactive rather than reflective of genuine remorse.

?This undermines his credibility as a role model for promoting compliance, as his actions directly contradicted the values he would be tasked to uphold.

?Without prejudice, appointing KWAM1 sends the wrong message by appearing to reward misconduct rather than penalizing it. His celebrity status does not inherently qualify him to advocate for security protocols, especially given his recent violation.

?Other nations have taken stricter measures against individuals involved in similar aviation security breaches, emphasizing accountability over leniency.?

Onoh provided examples of comparable incidents and actions taken, citing that in 2021, in a United States of America disruptive Passenger Incidents, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted the zero-tolerance policy for unruly passengers following a surge in disruptive incidents.

?For example, a passenger who assaulted a flight attendant on a Southwest Airlines flight was fined $81,950 and permanently banned from flying with the airline. The FAA reported over 5,000 unruly passenger incidents in 2021, with fines ranging from $5,000 to $45,000 for violations like interfering with crew or endangering aircraft operations.

?Unlike Nigeria?s approach with KWAM 1, the U.S. prioritizes penalties to deter future violations, with no instances of appointing offenders as safety ambassadors.

?In United Kingdom ? Gatwick Airport Drone Incident (2018),

When unauthorized drones disrupted operations at Gatwick Airport, the UK authorities arrested and investigated suspects with potential penalties of up to seven years in prison under the Aviation Security Act.

?The focus was on strengthening security measures and public awareness through stricter enforcement, not by engaging the perpetrators in advocacy roles. This contrasts sharply with Nigeria?s decision to elevate KWAM 1 to an ambassadorial role after his disruption.

?In Australia, Passenger Misconduct (2019), a passenger who attempted to enter the cockpit of a Qantas flight was banned from flying with the airline and faced criminal charges under Australia?s Aviation Transport Security Act. The Australian government emphasized public safety and deterrence, with no consideration of involving the offender in security advocacy. This approach underscores the importance of maintaining public trust through accountability rather than rewarding the offender with a public role.

?In India Air India Incident (2017), when a passenger assaulted an Air India crew member, the individual was placed on a no-fly list, and the airline pushed for stricter regulations against unruly behavior. India?s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) introduced a no-fly list framework, with bans ranging from three months to a lifetime for serious offenses. The focus was on punitive measures to reinforce compliance, not on rehabilitating offenders as public advocates.

?It?s funny that the same Nigeria government in the case of Obiajulu Uja, a Peter Obi supporter sometime in April 2023, disrupted an Ibom Air flight, the authorities of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) arrested him immediately and handed him over to the police and the Department of State Services (DSS) while protesting the May 29 inauguration of the president-elect. He was subsequently adjudged mentally unstable and remanded in prison for months.?

Onoh maintained that KWAM 1?s recent breach, regardless of his apology, casts doubt on his ability to credibly advocate for adherence to security standards, stressing that the decision risks prioritizing celebrity influence over merit and accountability, potentially leading to further public distrust and safety concerns.

?Finally, it?s my personal opinion that the appointment of KWAM 1 as an airport security ambassador is a counterproductive move that risks tarnishing Nigeria?s international image by signaling leniency toward aviation security breaches. Other countries? responses to similar incidents such as fines, bans, and criminal charges in the U.S., UK, Australia, and India highlight a global standard of prioritizing accountability over rehabilitation in public roles.? (Vanguard)

Update news