I have listened attentively to the Federal Government’s justification for considering Fuji musician Wasiu Ayinde (KWAM 1) and Ms. Comfort Emmanson for ambassadorial roles in the aviation sector. The Honourable Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, explained that these roles are voluntary, unpaid, and designed to transform repentant offenders into advocates for good conduct a concept similar to community service models practiced worldwide.
While the intention may be commendable, I must, with respect, disagree with the approach, the timing, and the symbolism.
First, timing is critical.
The incidents involving KWAM 1’s altercation at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport and Ms. Emmanson’s disruption aboard an Ibom Air flight are still fresh in the public’s mind. Elevating those involved to the title of “ambassador” so soon after their sanctions were lifted risks sending the wrong message that misconduct in public spaces can quickly lead to prominence. True repentance is demonstrated over time through consistent good conduct, not through a single apology.
Second, symbolism carries weight.
Regardless of whether the position is paid, the title “ambassador” denotes honour, trust, and a standard of behaviour for others to follow. Granting it to individuals whose recent actions were marked by disorder undermines both the deterrent value of sanctions and the dignity of the role.
Third, morality and public trust are paramount.
Islamic teaching in Surah al-Ma’idah (5:2) is clear: “Do not help one another in sin and transgression, but help one another in righteousness and piety.” Public awareness campaigns against misconduct are valuable, but the messenger must embody the message over a sustained period. Otherwise, the initiative risks appearing to endorse the very behaviour it seeks to discourage.
From my own experience, I understand what it means to be entrusted with such a position. More than eight years ago, I was appointed an ambassador on the basis of integrity, discipline, and service values I have worked to uphold ever since. This is not about opposing forgiveness or rehabilitation. It is about ensuring that rehabilitation is not perceived as a shortcut to honour, particularly in a society already struggling with public disorder and violence.
If the government wishes to involve these individuals in advocacy, there are numerous ways to do so without granting titles that carry national prestige. Let repentance be proven over time before it is rewarded with symbolic honours. Forgiveness is divine, rehabilitation is noble, but leadership in any form must be grounded in the highest moral standards.
