Senior lawyers and human rights advocates have challenged the position of the Inspector-General of Police, IGP Olatunji Disu, on the recording of police officers, insisting that Nigerians have a constitutional right to film law enforcement officers while they perform their duties in public.
The development followed renewed controversy over the right of citizens to record police officers after Disu warned against what he described as the indiscriminate recording and circulation of videos involving police personnel.
The IGP had acknowledged that Nigerians have the right to record officers performing their duties in public but expressed concern over the growing practice of turning police officers into social media content.
He said the trend had become demoralising to members of the Force, particularly where officers were recorded outside the context of their official duties.
However, legal practitioners have argued that the right of citizens to document police activities in public is protected by the Constitution and should not be restricted simply because the footage may later be shared online.
Human rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong said Nigerians have an unmistakable constitutional right to record police officers and other law enforcement personnel while they discharge their statutory responsibilities in public.
Speaking on Channels Television, Effiong said the right was guaranteed under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to disseminate and receive information.
He argued that the protection extends to the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices to document and share information.
Effiong also challenged the police to provide specific examples of the alleged misuse of recordings that informed the IGP’s warning, particularly the claim that officers were routinely being filmed for social media skits.
He said the police should clearly define what constitutes inappropriate content creation rather than issue a broad warning that could be interpreted as restricting citizens’ constitutional rights.
The position is also supported by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), whose President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, said citizens should not be discouraged from recording police officers who are performing their lawful duties in public.
Badejo-Okusanya made the position known during a meeting with the IGP and members of the NBA executive committee at the Force Headquarters in Abuja.
She said transparency should be encouraged in the lawful execution of police duties, while acknowledging the need for clearer rules to protect officers from unnecessary intrusion into their private lives.
The NBA President cited the use of body-worn cameras by police officers in the United States as an example of how recording can promote accountability and provide evidence of what occurs during encounters between law enforcement officers and members of the public.
“We just need to understand the limits,”
she said, calling for clearer guidelines to distinguish legitimate documentation of police activities from harassment or invasion of officers’ privacy.
The controversy also comes against the backdrop of a March 17, 2026 judgment of the Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State, which affirmed Nigerians’ constitutional right to record police officers while they perform their duties in public.
Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa, in the judgment, held that police officers must wear visible name tags and display their force numbers or proper identification during public operations.
The court further ruled that police officers could not lawfully harass, intimidate, arrest or seize the devices of citizens who record them while performing their duties in public.
The judgment followed a fundamental rights suit filed by lawyer Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo after an encounter with police officers during a stop-and-search operation along Sapele Roundabout in Delta State in May 2025.
The court subsequently awarded N5 million in damages for the violation of Uwaifo’s fundamental rights and N2 million as litigation costs.
While the legal position recognises citizens’ right to document police activities in public, the debate has also highlighted the need to establish clear boundaries.
The NBA has acknowledged that police officers are entitled to privacy when they are off duty and engaged in personal activities, such as eating or relaxing, where filming them could amount to an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
The IGP, meanwhile, has maintained that the police remain committed to accountability, transparency and respect for human rights, but wants public scrutiny and recording of officers to be conducted responsibly without obstructing police operations or exposing officers to unnecessary harassment.
