The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) blasts the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tunde Disu, over his reported position that citizens recording police officers while performing their duties amounts to an invasion of privacy, describing the position as inconsistent with constitutional rights, democratic policing and global best practices.
HURIWA asks the IGP: Does he think Nigeria lives in the Stone Age?
The association says a police officer performing official duties in a public space can not reasonably claim the same expectation of privacy as a private citizen in his home or personal environment.
HURIWA says the right of citizens to observe and record police officers carrying out public duties is an important accountability mechanism and must not be criminalised through administrative pronouncements.
The association draws attention to the judgment of the Federal High Court, Warri, in Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & Ors (FHC/WR/CS/87/2025), where the court held that citizens may lawfully record police officers performing public duties.
HURIWA says the decision reinforces the constitutional protection of citizens who document the conduct of public officials in the discharge of their responsibilities.
The association says any attempt by police officers to prevent citizens from peacefully recording their activities in public, intimidating them, threatening them, or seizing their phones merely because they are documenting police operations raises serious constitutional concerns
HURIWA notes that Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, while the principle of accountability requires public institutions, particularly security agencies vested with coercive powers, to operate under legitimate public scrutiny
The association also rejects any attempt to casually invoke Section 37 of the Constitution to place police officers performing public duties beyond public observation.
HURIWA says privacy is not a cloak that public officials can deploy to shield the exercise of public power from legitimate scrutiny.
The association further notes that the distinction between public duty and private life is crucial.
A police officer inside his home or engaged in genuinely private activities is entitled to constitutional privacy. But when an officer is in uniform and performing official duties in a public place, the circumstances are fundamentally different.
HURIWA says advanced democratic jurisdictions have increasingly embraced technology as a tool for police accountability, with body-worn cameras and other recording mechanisms used to document interactions between law enforcement officers and members of the public.
The association therefore asks why Nigerian citizens should be discouraged from documenting police conduct when the police themselves are increasingly expected globally to embrace mechanisms that preserve evidence of encounters with citizens.
HURIWA says the argument that citizens recording police operations automatically amounts to an invasion of privacy is therefore dangerously overbroad.
The association also notes the relevance of the Police Act 2020, including provisions requiring police officers to be properly identifiable, saying transparency and accountability are fundamental to legitimate policing.
HURIWA says the Nigeria Police Force must understand that public power comes with public accountability.
The association warns the IGP against creating an environment in which citizens become afraid to document alleged police misconduct, unlawful arrest, excessive use of force or other abuses simply because the officers involved claim that their privacy is being violated.
HURIWA says recording a police officer performing a public duty is not, by itself, an act of obstruction, harassment or criminality.
Where a citizen actually obstructs a police operation, interferes with an investigation, or unlawfully enters a restricted area, the relevant law may apply. But merely holding a phone and documenting what is happening from a lawful position should not automatically become a criminal offence.
The association calls on the IGP to clarify his position and ensure that police personnel do not interpret any directive on privacy as a licence to confiscate phones, delete recordings, threaten citizens or prevent the documentation of police activities carried out in public.
HURIWA says the police cannot demand accountability from citizens while simultaneously resisting the cameras that can provide an independent record of their own conduct.
The association urges 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 maintains that the police belong to the public, exercise public power, and must therefore remain subject to legitimate public scrutiny.
The association, however, stresses that the right to record public officials is not an unlimited licence to invade anyone’s private life. Police officers, like every other citizen, retain their constitutional right to privacy when they are off duty and in genuinely private settings.
HURIWA, therefore, calls for a clear distinction between recording public power and invading private life.
The association says Nigeria’s democracy will be strengthened—not weakened—when citizens can peacefully document the conduct of public officials without intimidation.
Signed:
Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko
National Coordinator
Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA).
