A Nigerian lawyer has pushed back against concerns raised by Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Disu over the growing practice of citizens recording police officers, stressing that Nigerians retain the legal right to film officers while they perform their duties in public.
The renewed debate follows comments by Disu, who urged Nigerians to exercise restraint when recording police officers and warned against turning officers into content for social media skits. The police chief said the practice had become a concern within the Force and could be demoralising for officers carrying out difficult and dangerous assignments.
Disu, however, did not say that Nigerians have no right to record officers. During a meeting with Nigerian Bar Association leaders in Abuja, he acknowledged the Federal High Court judgment that affirmed citizens' constitutional right to record police officers performing their duties in public. His objection was directed particularly at indiscriminate recording and the use of police encounters as entertainment content.
The lawyer's position is supported by the March 17, 2026 judgment of the Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State. Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa ruled in favour of lawyer Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo in a fundamental-rights case arising from a police stop-and-search encounter.
The court held that Nigerians have a constitutional right to record police officers carrying out their duties in public. It further ordered that officers should not harass, intimidate or arrest citizens simply because they are recording police activities, and should not confiscate their devices for that reason.
The judgment went beyond the issue of recording. The court also ruled that police officers conducting public operations should have visible identification, including name tags and force numbers. The case was partly concerned with the use of unidentified officers during stop-and-search operations and the implications for accountability when citizens cannot establish who is exercising police powers over them.
The court's ruling means that the legal right to record police activity should not be confused with an unrestricted right to interfere with police operations. Recording an officer from a safe distance is different from obstructing an investigation, interfering with an arrest or deliberately creating a dangerous situation.
That distinction is at the heart of the current disagreement. Disu's warning focuses on how the right is being exercised, particularly where people record officers simply to create viral videos or skits. The legal position, meanwhile, protects the ability of citizens to document official conduct in public, especially where accountability or possible misconduct is involved.
There is also an important difference between recording an officer performing public duties and recording an officer in a private setting. Disu complained that some people had begun recording police officers even while they were eating at restaurants, arguing that the practice had moved beyond legitimate documentation of police work.
That distinction matters because the court judgment concerns police officers performing public duties in public spaces. It should not automatically be interpreted as permission to record every police officer in every circumstance or to disregard ordinary laws relating to obstruction, privacy or public order.
The issue is particularly significant because recording police activity can provide evidence when disputes arise between officers and members of the public. The Warri case itself emerged from an encounter in which Uwaifo said he attempted to record officers whom he believed were behaving improperly. The court subsequently awarded him damages for violations of his fundamental rights.
The Nigeria Police Force had also previously acknowledged the public's right to record officers. In December 2023, the Force publicly stated that filming or photographing police officers performing their duties was not itself an offence and that officers should not harass people for doing so.
The latest comments therefore do not amount to a reversal of the court's decision. Rather, they highlight a continuing dispute over how citizens should exercise a right that has now received judicial recognition.
For members of the public, the practical lesson is that recording police activity for legitimate documentation or accountability purposes is legally different from deliberately provoking officers or turning every police encounter into entertainment. For the police, the existence of the right also means officers must expect a degree of public scrutiny while exercising their powers in public.
The challenge for both sides is finding the appropriate balance. Citizens need to be able to document the conduct of law-enforcement officers without intimidation, while police officers should be able to perform their duties without unnecessary obstruction or harassment.
The disagreement between the police leadership and legal advocates therefore goes beyond whether Nigerians can use their phones around police officers. It raises a broader question about how accountability, privacy and effective policing should coexist in a democratic society.
No comments:
Post a Comment