BA follow-up

The Nigerian Bar Association takes action against BA, via Assizes Law Firm, Lagos. Here is the text of the suit:

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS

Suit No

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY:
1. AYO OMOTADE
2. OLISA AGBAKOBA SAN
3. NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION

FOR LEAVE TO ENFORCE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 1979 MADE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA PURSUANT TO SECTION 42 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1979

BETWEEN:
1. AYO OMOTADE
2. OLISA AGBAKOBA SAN
3. NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION Applicants

AND:

BRITISH AIRWAYS Respondent

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Isaiah Irabor, male, Christian, Nigerian citizen, legal practitioner of 15 Ogundana Street, off Allen Avenue, Ikeja Lagos, do hereby make oath and say as follows:

1. I am a legal practitioner in the Law Firm of [email protected] (Assizes) of 15 Ogundana Street, off Allen Avenue, Ikeja Lagos, counsel to the Applicants, and by reason of my schedule of responsibilities at Assizes, I am conversant with the facts deposed to in this affidavit.

2. The 1st Applicant related the following facts, which I verily believe:

a. The 1st Applicant is a Nigerian citizen and an Information Technology (IT) Consultant based in Chatham, Kent, UK.
b. On 27/3/2008, 137 passengers including the 1st Applicant boarded the Respondent’s BA075 from London, UK, to Lagos, Nigeria.
c. Upon boarding, the 1st Applicant went straight to his assigned seat 53C.
d. The 1st Applicant later noticed that a male Nigerian was being deported to Nigeria on the same flight.
e. On getting to his seat, the 1st Applicant heard noises from an individual being forcibly restrained but who was not visible because some police officers and some plain clothes people held him down.
f. The noise continued for more than 20 minutes and the 1st Applicant was concerned because the individual was screaming in agony and shouting in pidgin English “I go die-o!”
g. The 1st Applicant pleaded with the officers not to kill him and his exact words were “please don’t kill him”.
h. The Respondent’s staff said that the officers were doing their jobs and that nothing was going to happen.
i. The 1st Applicant observed that the said deportee was handcuffed, yet was being further restrained and manhandled violently.
j. The 1st Applicant felt concerned about the wellbeing, life and limb of the deportee, who continued wailing in pain.
k. The 1st Applicant gently approached the officers tormenting the deportee, and asked them not to kill him.
l. The noise from the restrained individual became louder and other passengers started getting concerned and were complaining especially about their safety in the circumstances.
m. Eventually, a member of the cabin crew announced that the restrained passenger was going to be removed and the passenger was removed from the plane, and the other passengers all thought that was the end of the situation.
n. 5 minutes later, 2 members of the cabin crew arrived with about 4 police officers and told the 1st Applicant to get off the plane.
o. The 1st Applicant asked what the matter was and they said that he was not going to travel with the airline because the cabin crew believed he had been disruptive by questioning the noise being caused by the deportee that was removed.
p. The 1st Applicant pleaded with the officers that he was going for his brother’s wedding and had all of his brother’s items with him.
q. The 1st Applicant was unceremoniously dragged out of the plane as if he was resisting arrest.
r. As, along with the officers tormenting him, the 1st Applicant got to the corridor that linked the plane with the terminal building, he was slammed against the wall, made to sit on the floor, and handcuffed.
s. The 1st Applicant was still pleading with the officers, telling them that they had completely misunderstood him and that he was only complaining about the situation regarding the disturbances caused by the deportee they were trying to restrain and subdue.
t. The 1st Applicant was on the floor for about 20 to 25 minutes.
u. Another passenger was brought to the corridor as well and he was also pleading with the officers.
v. The 1st Applicant was later put in the back of a police van at about 1:50pm and was locked up there for about 1 hour or more, still handcuffed.
w. The 1st Applicant was formally arrested approximately 2:30pm and his rights were read to him.
x. Before the arrest in the van, the 1st Applicant managed to reach for his pocket and brought out his mobile phone.
y. The 1st Applicant made some phone calls to his wife, sister and a friend while the low battery sign was on because the 1st Applicant was all alone and still handcuffed.
z. The 1st Applicant was later driven to the police station where he was formally checked in.
aa. The 1st Applicant was in police custody for almost 8 hours and later released on bail after the interview with the duty solicitor and the detectives.
bb. The 1st Applicant had on him:-
i. £473.00,
ii. £90.00 sent to his mother in-law from his sister in-law, and
iii. £1,050.00 given to the 1st Applicant by his cousin who is a doctor for the upkeep of his parents in Nigeria.
cc. All the money together was £1,613.00.
dd. The officers told the 1st Applicant that he would appear in a magistrate court to prove the money was not meant for crime or proceeds of crime.
ee. The officers told the 1st Applicant that they would like to see traceability and that the 1st Applicant needed to produce his payslips
and bank account detailing his payments and withdrawals as well as his cousin’s payments and withdrawals.
ff. The 1st Applicant was released but without the money, which was withheld by the officers.
gg. The 1st Applicant made his way to terminal 4 and arrived there at about 12:30 a.m. but the Respondent’s kiosks were closed.
hh. The 1st Applicant was directed to the staff room where he told the staff there that he wanted to rebook his trip to Lagos, Nigeria.
ii. A lady told the 1st Applicant to give her his ticket, which he did, and she stated that the Respondent had banned the 1st Applicant from travelling with them indefinitely and that only the managers could use their discretion because the 1st Applicant was a ‘disruptive passenger’.
jj. The 1st Applicant requested for his 2 piece-luggage and the lady told him that the section would be opened later about 5:30 a.m. and that the 1st Applicant would then be escorted in to collect them.
kk. The 1st Applicant slept on the chair and waited till about 5:30 a.m. and attempted to rebook his ticket but was told that the Respondent refused to take him.
ll. The 1st Applicant decided to go and pick up his items and was told that his luggage was missing.
mm. The 1st Applicant was handed a form with reference number LONBA90924 to complain about his luggage.
nn. At this point, the 1st Applicant became totally stranded because he could not leave without his luggage as it contained his brother’s wedding suit, shirts and accessories.
oo. The 1st Applicant was on the phone with his wife and she wanted to book an alternative flight that would depart at 10:15 a.m. so that the 1st Applicant could attend his brother’s wedding. This was not possible because the Respondent refused to disclose where his luggage was and had not removed his luggage from the flight when they called the police to arrest him.
pp. On Monday 31/3/2008, the 1st Applicant appeared at the magistrate court but was told that a decision had been made about the £1,613.00 that had been seized from him: the police had been granted a further 90 days to hold on to the money pending their investigation. The 1st Applicant was given the relevant officer’s details.
qq. The officer requested 12 months’ bank statements and 6 months’ payslips to prove that the £473.00 belonging to the 1st Applicant did not represent proceeds of crime.
rr. The officer also requested that the £1,050.00 given to the 1st Applicant by his cousin for the cousin’s parents should also be traced to his cousin’s 12 months’ bank statements and 6 months’ payslips.
ss. One DC Webster promised to write the 1st Applicant formally detailing these requests.
tt. Still on Monday 31/3/2008, 4 days after the 1st Applicant was taken off the plane, he made extra efforts to find out the whereabouts of his 2-piece luggage (LONBA90924), since it had not been sent to his address as promised, by calling the lost baggage section at 1:44 p.m. and spoke to a certain Neil.
uu. When the 1st Applicant spoke to Neil, the latter claimed it was difficult for them to trace his bags and that there was a strong possibility that they might be in Lagos. Neil suggested that the 1st Applicant should call back in 24 hours.
vv. Eventually, 1 week and 1 day later, the 1st Applicant’s bags were brought to him at home. One was badly damaged and the other was intact.
ww. The Respondent maliciously and mischievously made sure the 1st Applicant missed his brother’s wedding. After all, if they were kicking the 1st Applicant off their flight, they would have simultaneously removed his bags from the flight. The Respondent’s officers were all there when the police officers made the 1st Applicant to sit on the floor and heard the 1st Applicant pleading to be allowed to travel for his brother's wedding. If his luggage had been let off the Respondent’s plane, the 1st Applicant could have taken either KLM or Virgin Nigeria the following Friday morning.
xx. 135 passengers were asked to leave the flight because they expressed displeasure regarding the disturbances caused by the deportee and the officers trying to restrain him.
yy. The Respondent maliciously and mischievously refused to endorse the 1st Applicant’s ticket to enable him fly with another airline.

3. The 2nd Applicant is a veteran of human rights law and activism, as well as a public interest litigator. The 2nd Applicant is anxious to advance, defend and protect the rights of Nigerians all over the world. The 2nd Applicant is also the President of the 3rd Applicant.

4. The 3rd Applicant is the umbrella association of Nigerian lawyers and a pressure group whose constituency includes all Nigerians within and outside the country.

5. The 2nd Applicant informed me and I verily believe him that in most jurisdictions similar to Nigeria, human rights activists, defenders and lawyers are increasingly being encouraged to launch public interest litigation geared towards the advancement of human rights.

6. The 2nd Applicant also informed me and I equally believe him that increasingly, international human rights norms are being applied in municipal courts without local legislation, at times as customary international law.

7. Unless the reliefs herein sought are granted by this Honourable Court, the Respondent will continue and repeat their course of conduct complained of, against Nigerian passengers on its flights, thus occasioning grave infractions of the Applicants’ municipal and international rights, and causing them irreparable damage, grievous harm and incalculable loss.

8. In light of the foregoing it would be in the interest of justice to grant this application.

9. I depose to this affidavit in good faith, believing the same to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act.

DEPONENT
SWORN TO AT THE
FEDERAL HIGH COURT REGISTRY
IKOYI LAGOS
THIS …… DAY OF APRIL 2008

BEFORE ME



COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS