A LEGAL OPINION ON THE RECORDING OF POLICE OFFICERS BY CITIZENS AND WHETHER A POLICE OFFICER, AS A PUBLIC OFFICER, FORFEITS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

By

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Aliyu Salihu Kudumi

ABSTRACT

The increasing use of mobile phones and social media platforms has significantly transformed the relationship between citizens and the Nigeria Police Force. The recording of police officers during patrols, arrests, stop-and-search operations, and other official engagements has become increasingly common within Nigeria’s democratic space. This development has generated constitutional and legal debates concerning the extent to which police officers may lawfully be recorded and whether a police officer, merely because he is a public officer, forfeits his constitutional rights.

This paper examines the constitutional position regarding citizens’ rights to record police officers in public spaces and the corresponding rights of police officers to dignity, privacy, security, and protection from harassment or malicious digital persecution. It further evaluates relevant judicial authorities and statutory provisions, including the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, while emphasizing the need to balance public accountability with national security, operational integrity, and the constitutional rights of law enforcement officers.

Keywords

Police Recording, Fundamental Rights, Nigeria Police Force, Constitutional Rights, Public Accountability, Privacy Rights, Cybercrimes Act, Police Accountability, Democratic Policing, Public Officers, Human Dignity, National Security, Freedom of Expression, Rule of Law, Digital Harassment.

INTRODUCTION

The growing use of smartphones and social media has significantly altered interactions between citizens and law enforcement agencies in Nigeria. In recent years, it has become increasingly common for members of the public to record police officers during patrols, stop-and-search operations, arrests, checkpoint duties, and other official engagements.

This emerging reality has generated serious constitutional and legal debates concerning the legality of such recordings and whether police officers, by virtue of being public officers paid with public funds, lose or surrender their constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, and personal security.

A common argument advanced in support of unrestricted recording is that police officers are public servants funded by taxpayers and are therefore subject to unlimited public scrutiny. While transparency and accountability remain essential elements of democratic governance, the law does not support the proposition that a police officer automatically forfeits constitutional protections merely because he serves in a public capacity.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), guarantees fundamental rights to every Nigerian citizen irrespective of profession, status, or office. Consequently, police officers remain entitled to constitutional protection even while carrying out official duties.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF POLICE OFFICERS

Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides that:

“Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person.”

Similarly, Section 37 guarantees and protects the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations, and communications.

These constitutional protections extend to police officers notwithstanding the public nature of their duties. Although police officers may lawfully be subjected to public observation and scrutiny while discharging official responsibilities, they nevertheless retain the right to dignity, lawful privacy, personal security, and protection against harassment, intimidation, cyberbullying, malicious publication, and acts capable of exposing them to ridicule or danger.

Public office does not extinguish constitutional humanity. A police officer remains a citizen protected by the Constitution and the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO RECORD POLICE OFFICERS

The legal position regarding citizens’ rights to record police officers received judicial affirmation in the recent decision of the Federal High Court in Maxwell N. Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & 3 Ors. (Judgment delivered on 17 March 2026).

In that case, the Court affirmed the right of citizens to record police officers carrying out official duties in public spaces and further held that police officers cannot lawfully harass, intimidate, arrest, or seize phones from citizens merely because such citizens are openly recording police activities conducted in public view.

The judgment has widely been regarded as a progressive affirmation of transparency, democratic accountability, and responsible civic participation in policing. It reinforces the principle that law enforcement institutions within a democratic society remain subject to lawful public scrutiny and documentation.

However, the decision did not create an unrestricted licence for indiscriminate recording or the weaponization of cameras and social media against police officers. The Court did not authorize recordings intended to harass officers, obstruct lawful police duties, compromise security operations, expose confidential policing methods, or subject officers to online ridicule and malicious digital persecution.

CYBERSTALKING, MALICIOUS PUBLICATION, AND LEGAL LIABILITY

Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 criminalizes cyberstalking, online harassment, intimidation, and the transmission of electronic communications intended to cause annoyance, insult, hatred, emotional distress, danger, or needless anxiety to another person.

Accordingly, where an individual deliberately records and circulates videos or images of police officers with malicious intent to ridicule, blackmail, provoke hostility, incite violence, or expose officers to public hatred or danger, such conduct may attract both criminal and civil liability under Nigerian law.

The constitutional right to freedom of expression does not include the right to engage in digital persecution, incitement, defamation, or cyber harassment. Rights guaranteed under the Constitution must always be exercised within lawful and reasonable limits prescribed by law and public interest.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policing remains a highly sensitive public security function. Police officers are regularly involved in intelligence gathering, anti-crime operations, counterterrorism activities, anti-banditry operations, and other delicate assignments requiring operational confidentiality.

Reckless or indiscriminate recording and publication of certain police activities may, in some circumstances, compromise investigations, expose tactical procedures, reveal the identities of informants, endanger officers, or jeopardize public safety and national security.

In Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320, the Supreme Court recognized that national security and public safety may justify lawful restrictions on certain freedoms where necessary for the preservation of public order and societal peace.

Similarly, Nigerian courts have consistently condemned acts capable of exposing persons to unnecessary public humiliation or prejudicial media persecution. In Ndukwem Chiziri Nice v. Attorney-General of the Federation, the Court criticized public exposure capable of undermining human dignity and fair treatment.

Furthermore, in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 206, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional protection of privacy, dignity, and personal autonomy.

BALANCING ACCOUNTABILITY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Notwithstanding the foregoing, citizens equally possess legitimate constitutional rights to hold public institutions accountable and to document incidents of alleged police misconduct, unlawful detention, extortion, abuse of power, or brutality where necessary in the interest of justice, evidence preservation, and public accountability.
The real constitutional challenge, therefore, is not the elevation of one right above another, but the maintenance of a lawful and reasonable balance between public accountability and the preservation of the dignity, safety, operational integrity, and constitutional rights of police officers as both public officers and citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Democracy thrives where accountability, professionalism, mutual respect, and the rule of law coexist harmoniously. Police officers are expected to conduct themselves professionally, lawfully, and within constitutional boundaries. Citizens, on the other hand, must equally exercise their freedoms responsibly without resorting to harassment, provocation, malicious publication, obstruction of police duties, or digital persecution.

Ultimately, the mere fact that a police officer is a public officer funded by public resources does not extinguish his humanity or constitutional protections. Public service should never be interpreted as a surrender of dignity, lawful privacy, personal security, or rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

The current legal position in Nigeria recognizes and protects the right of citizens to record police officers performing official duties in public spaces. However, such rights are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly, lawfully, and within constitutional limits.

Any recording or publication intended to harass, intimidate, cyberbully, blackmail, obstruct police operations, compromise security activities, or unlawfully degrade police officers may attract liability under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as well as Sections 34, 37, and 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The law therefore seeks to maintain a delicate but necessary balance between public accountability in policing and the preservation of the dignity, safety, operational integrity, and constitutional rights of police officers within a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

REFERENCES

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 34(1)(a).
2. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 37.
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 45.
4. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, Section 24.
5. Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320.
6. Maxwell N. Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & 3 Ors. (Federal High Court, Judgment delivered on 17 March 2026).
7. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 206.
8. Ndukwem Chiziri Nice v. Attorney-General of the Federation (Unreported Decision).

*Aliyu Salihu Kudumi, LL.B (Hons), PGD, MLCJ (ABU Zaria), fCAI, ACArb, fGIPCM, PhD (In View) is a Legal Researcher, Public Affairs Analyst, Security & Criminal Justice Enthusiast and writes from the Institute of Government and Development Studies Nasarawa State University Kiddi (NSUK). Email: Sakudumi@yahoo.com, Phone: +2347032552560

Kindly share