Odita Sunday 
HURIWA Challenges IGP, Says Nigerians Can Record Police Officers On Duty
By Odita Sunday
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has challenged the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tunde Disu, over his reported position that citizens who record police officers while performing their duties are invading their privacy.
The association described the position as inconsistent with constitutional rights, democratic policing and modern accountability standards, insisting that police officers performing official duties in public cannot claim the same expectation of privacy as citizens in genuinely private settings.
HURIWA, in a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, said citizens’ ability to observe and document police activities in public is an important accountability mechanism that should not be criminalised through administrative directives.
The association cited the judgment of the Federal High Court, Warri, in Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & Ors (FHC/WR/CS/87/2025), which it said affirmed the right of citizens to lawfully record police officers performing public duties.
According to HURIWA, the judgment reinforces constitutional protections for citizens who document the conduct of public officials while carrying out their responsibilities.
The group warned that any attempt by police officers to intimidate citizens, threaten them, seize their phones or prevent them from recording police activities merely because they are documenting operations in public could raise serious constitutional concerns.
It pointed to Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, arguing that public institutions, particularly security agencies exercising coercive powers, must remain subject to legitimate public scrutiny.
HURIWA also rejected what it described as an attempt to casually invoke Section 37 of the Constitution to shield police officers performing public duties from observation.
The association stressed that the distinction between public duty and private life was critical, noting that police officers retain their right to privacy when they are at home, off duty or engaged in genuinely private activities.
However, it argued that the circumstances are different when an officer is in uniform and carrying out official duties in a public space.
“Public power comes with public accountability,” the association said, warning against creating an environment where citizens become afraid to document alleged police misconduct, unlawful arrests, excessive use of force or other abuses.
HURIWA further argued that recording a police officer performing a public duty does not, by itself, amount to obstruction, harassment or criminality.
It acknowledged that laws could apply where a person actually obstructs police operations, interferes with an investigation or unlawfully enters a restricted area, but maintained that merely using a mobile phone to document police activity from a lawful position should not automatically constitute an offence.
The association also referenced the Police Act 2020 and its provisions concerning the identification of police officers, saying transparency and accountability were essential to legitimate policing.
HURIWA urged the IGP to clarify his position and ensure that police personnel do not interpret any privacy directive as authority to confiscate phones, delete recordings, threaten citizens or prevent the documentation of police activities carried out in public.
The association also called on the Nigeria Police Force to embrace body-worn cameras and other transparent recording mechanisms as part of modern policing, rather than treating citizens’ cameras as threats.
HURIWA said advanced democratic jurisdictions increasingly use technology, including body-worn cameras, to preserve records of encounters between law enforcement officers and members of the public.
The group questioned why Nigerian citizens should be discouraged from documenting police conduct when police institutions globally are being encouraged to adopt similar mechanisms for accountability.
HURIWA, however, acknowledged that the right to record public officials is not an unlimited licence to invade private life, stressing that police officers, like other citizens, retain their constitutional right to privacy in genuinely private settings.
The association called for a clear distinction between documenting the exercise of public power and invading an individual’s private life, saying citizens should be able to peacefully document the conduct of public officials without intimidation.
About the Author
