Should Nigerians record police?

The question might not have become a national talking point if the Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu, had not described the growing practice of recording police officers as “very, very demoralising.”

Disu said recently in Abuja that the police were now being filmed everywhere, including in restaurants, with the footage turned into social-media content.

Disu is right about one thing: police officers should not become unwilling actors in skits.

Citizens should not harass them or invade their privacy. Like other citizens, police officers are entitled to reasonable privacy and dignity.

But the IG is wrong if he is warning citizens against documenting police performing public duties in public places.

The law is very clear on that question.

In March, the Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, affirmed the right of Nigerians to record police officers performing their duties in public.

Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa ruled that police officers must not harass, intimidate, arrest or confiscate the devices of citizens who record their official activities.

The judgement followed a suit by a lawyer, Maxwell Uwaifo, after he was reportedly stopped by police officers while travelling from Benin to Warri. He said the officers questioned him aggressively and ordered him to stop recording or be arrested.

The court’s ruling was based on the provision of Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which protects citizens’ freedom of expression.

This is a landmark judgement. Policing must not curb citizens’ constitutional rights in a democracy.

A police officer exercising state power in a public space is not acting as a private citizen. He is exercising authority on behalf of the state. The public should legitimately scrutinise that authority.

The Police Act itself recognises the importance of documenting arrests and the circumstances surrounding them.

Filming the police is therefore not hostile to law enforcement. Rather, it protects both citizens and police officers.

The sordid history of Nigerian policing demonstrates why recording officers is good for everyone.

In May 2025, a video recorded along the Benin Bypass in Edo State showed a police officer demanding either N5,000 or five litres of fuel from motorists who could not produce proof of the suspended Electronic Central Motor Registry registration.

The police authorities identified and summoned the officers involved. Without the recording, there would have been no public evidence of that disgraceful encounter.

• Court seizes Lagos, Abuja firm’s assets over $40m oil debt
• Tinubu credentials: APC challenges Atiku’s substituted service request
• Police deny shooting motorcyclist in Kwara

In January, another video showed two police officers in Delta State obtaining money from a motorist through a Point-of-Sale device inside a police station. The police also identified and tried the officers, found them guilty and demoted them.

Police officers exercise extensive powers over citizens. They stop, search, arrest and deprive people of their liberty. Accountability must come with such powers. A camera is an instrument of accountability.

This is all the more important in Nigeria, where police extortion, arbitrary arrest, unlawful detention and even extrajudicial killing have persisted for years.

Another instance of full-blown criminality was in May, when five inspectors attached to the Rivers State Command were dismissed from service after being linked to armed robbery, kidnapping, and extortion. The officers allegedly used the cover of official patrol operations to abduct and rob members of the public.

Evidence of this kind of misconduct, whether from digital footage or otherwise, is critical to confirming or dismissing allegations.

Disu and the police authorities should therefore welcome a reliable accountability system that helps in rooting out criminals from the force.

Instead, increasingly, phones are being seized or destroyed.

In August, an Abuja-based journalist, Sunday Ogwu, alleged that police officers and some vigilante members assaulted him while he was filming a demolition exercise. He said they seized and damaged his phone.

Such allegations deserve thorough investigation and appropriate sanctions. Seizing or destroying phones used for recording amounts to destroying evidence. This is condemnable.

Modern policing recognises the value of video evidence. Body-worn cameras are used in many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Brazil, and Asia, to document encounters between officers and members of the public. They assist in investigations and provide evidence when accounts of an incident differ.

The Nigeria Police Force should not regard video generated by citizens as adversarial to policing. If properly used, it can aid accountability.

One question stands out. If the police can record citizens during investigations, arrests or searches, why shouldn’t citizens also document police officers exercising public authority in public spaces?

A well-trained officer should understand that being recorded is part of modern public service. If an officer behaves lawfully and respectfully, video evidence can vindicate him, just as it can expose his misconduct.

The IG’s concern about officers being turned into entertainment content is understandable.

But there is a legal distinction between filming an officer privately for a social-media skit and documenting an officer exercising public authority.

Nigerians and the police should know the difference.

A camera held by a citizen at a checkpoint should not automatically be viewed as an act of hostility. Sometimes it may be the clearest evidence that an officer acted properly. Sometimes it may reveal extortion, unlawful detention or abuse of power. In either case, the recording serves the public interest.

The police force should not fear cameras if it has nothing to hide. They are sometimes assets.