There has been growing controversy over the right of Nigerians to record police officers while carrying out their duties in public, following comments by the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu.
The development has drawn reactions from human rights organisations and the African Action Congress, which backed the position of the Nigerian Bar Association that citizens should be allowed to document police activities in public.
The controversy followed a disagreement between the NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, and Disu over the extent to which members of the public can film police officers.
The NBA president had maintained that Nigerians have the right to record police officers performing their duties in public, while also calling for clear guidelines to prevent the abuse of the practice and protect officers’ privacy when they are off duty.
Her position was supported by a March 17 judgment of the Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State, which affirmed the constitutional right of Nigerians to record police officers while they are performing their duties in public.
Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa, in the judgment delivered in a suit filed by a lawyer, Maxwell Uwaifo, also directed police officers to display their names and force numbers during public operations.
Reacting to the controversy, Amnesty International Country Director, Isa Sanusi, said measures capable of limiting transparency in policing should not be encouraged.
Sanusi said the police should ensure that their officers conduct themselves professionally and transparently, adding that officers who perform their duties properly should not be concerned about being monitored by members of the public.
Similarly, the General Secretary of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, Gerald Katchy, described the recording of police activities as an important accountability mechanism.
Katchy argued that video recordings could provide useful evidence in cases involving alleged police misconduct or resistance to lawful authority.
He also urged the police to promote the use of body-worn cameras by officers, noting that such technology could improve professionalism and accountability within the Force.
The African Action Congress also criticised the reported restriction, saying Nigerians need to be able to document encounters with police officers, particularly in cases involving illegal checkpoints and persons impersonating police officers.
The party cited Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information.
However, public affairs analyst, Dr Rufus Egbagba, urged Nigerians not to interpret the IGP’s position as an attempt to prevent the public from exposing police misconduct.
Egbagba said Disu was instead calling for responsible engagement with police officers and cautioning against actions that could obstruct officers from performing their lawful duties.
He advised Nigerians who record alleged misconduct to preserve the footage and submit it through appropriate channels, including the Police Complaint Response Unit, rather than relying solely on social media.
According to him, short videos posted online may not always provide the full circumstances surrounding an incident, as they may leave out what happened before or after the recording.
The analyst, however, acknowledged that misconduct by some police officers should not be ignored, while cautioning against creating the impression that the actions of a few officers represent the entire Nigeria Police Force.
Disu had earlier expressed concern over the increasing practice of recording police officers, describing it as potentially demoralising to members of the Force.
The IGP, however, clarified that citizens were not being denied the right to record police officers performing their duties in public.
He urged members of the public, particularly content creators and social media users, not to turn police officers into subjects of social media skits, especially when the officers are not carrying out official duties.
The NBA president also acknowledged the need to protect officers’ privacy, particularly when they are off duty.
She cited situations where police officers were filmed while eating or relaxing, saying such actions could amount to an invasion of privacy.
She, however, maintained that such situations were different from recording officers while they were performing official duties.
Badejo-Okusanya also referred to the use of body-worn cameras by police officers in the United States, noting that the technology was introduced to promote accountability.
She called for clearer regulations to define the limits of citizens’ right to record police officers and prevent the practice from being abused.
The PUNCH reports that Disu had, on May 31, 2026, during an interactive session with crime correspondents in Abuja, cautioned content creators, social media users and members of the public against indiscriminately recording and circulating police-related videos.
He said such actions could undermine security operations and demoralise police officers.
The IGP stressed that while accountability and transparency remained important, recordings involving police officers should be carried out responsibly and should not be used to harass officers or interfere with their operations.
