You Can Record Police Officers on Duty; It Is Your Constitutional Right — Federal High Court

The Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State, has handed down a significant ruling upholding Nigerians' constitutional right to record, photograph, and document police officers' actions in public. The court has also declared the practice of anonymous policing, in which officers don't wear visible identification while on duty, unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judgment, delivered by Justice H. A. Nganjiwa in Suit No. FHC/WR/CS/87/2025, Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & 3 Ors., arose from a personal encounter the applicant, a legal practitioner, had with anonymous police officers at a checkpoint, and was brought as a public interest litigation on behalf of himself and in the interest of the Nigerian public.

Court documents show that the situation began on May 10th, 2025. That's when Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo, a lawyer with Lex Phronesis Solicitors in Ekpan, Warri, was driving from Benin to Warri.

In a sworn statement he made at the Federal High Court Registry in Warri on July 31st, 2025, Uwaifo explained what happened. He said that just after passing the Sapele roundabout, he came across a group of men. They had a vehicle blocking the road and were stopping cars – it looked like a police checkpoint.

These men flagged him down and started asking him questions, but they were very rough and aggressive. Uwaifo claims they had no legal reason or any good cause to suspect he'd done anything wrong. Feeling like their behavior might be an attempt to extort money or harass him, Uwaifo tried to watch and record the interaction using his phone.

As soon as he pulled out his phone, one of the men, a guy in a black outfit who looked like a cop, stepped in, warning him he’d be arrested if he didn’t put the phone away.

Uwaifo’s sworn statement explains that the officers didn’t wear name tags, didn’t introduce themselves, and made no effort to identify themselves or explain why they were acting that way. The car they were in was a black Toyota Sienna, with no police signs, no license plate number, and nothing else to suggest it was a police vehicle.

The lawyer added that he was really uncomfortable because he couldn’t figure out who these guys were; no names, no badge numbers, and they were driving a car that didn’t look like a cop car at all, with no markings or plates.

He pointed out that the officers had guns and were roughly giving orders, making it too risky for him to ask for their ID or question what they were doing. The whole encounter felt threatening, and the men made things so tense that Uwaifo felt he couldn’t safely ask questions or keep recording, worried he might get roughed up or locked up unfairly.

READ ALSO: President Tinubu Orders Security Chiefs To Move To Maiduguri After Bomb Blast Kills 23, Injures 100

Uwaifo explained that he had no choice but to obey their demands and leave as quietly as possible because he was terrified of being physically hurt, arrested, or having his phone taken from him by force. He said that because he was so scared and the officers were acting aggressively, he couldn’t collect any solid proof, record a video, or even clearly see who they were. They weren’t wearing any name tags, and they arrived in an unmarked car.

He also mentioned another similar situation that happened in Warri, near the Effurun Roundabout area, back in June 2025. In that case, armed police officers who were stopping people to check their documents weren’t wearing any name tags, badges, or force numbers on their uniforms.

The lawsuit is based on Sections 34, 35, 41, and 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, and Sections 4 and 7 of the Nigeria Police Act 2020.

In the legal papers he filed to support his court request, Uwaifo listed five main points for the court to consider:

Whether the refusal of police officers to wear name tags or display force numbers during stop-and-search operations violated the Constitution and the Police Act; whether preventing citizens from filming police officers during official duties violated the constitutional right to freedom of expression; whether the applicant was entitled to public interest redress and damages; whether the applicant had locus standi to institute the action in public interest; and whether the respondents had a constitutional and statutory duty to ensure proper identification of their personnel.

The applicant's main argument was based on Section 66(1) of the Nigeria Police Act 2020. This section clearly states that police officers must prominently display their name tags and identification numbers on their uniforms whenever they are on duty.

Uwaifo argued in his written submission that this isn't just a superficial rule; it's a crucial measure for ensuring transparency, accountability, and proper conduct. He submitted that sending officers out without their names or identification numbers is a failure on the part of the respondents in their duty to care for the public. It also weakens civilian oversight and leaves them open to accusations of involvement in illegal activities.

He also pointed to Section 8(1)(c) of the Police Act, which highlights that one of the police's fundamental duties is to protect and defend the rights and freedoms of every individual in Nigeria, as outlined in the Constitution, the African Charter, and other relevant laws.

Regarding the right to record, Uwaifo contended that recording police officers while they are lawfully performing their duties is a clear part of Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution. This section guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and share ideas and information without interference.

READ ALSO: Federal High Court Judge Orders Sowore’s Lawyer to Kneel — Counsel Refuses, Says Order Unknown to Nigerian Law

He submitted that neither the Criminal Code Act, the Penal Code, the Police Act 2020, nor any other Nigerian statute criminalises the act of recording public officials. He argued that any interference with this right must, under Section 45(1) of the Constitution, be by a law of general application and necessary in a democratic society, and no such law exists.

Citing multiple judicial authorities, including the Court of Appeal decisions in Arthur Nwankwo v. The State (1985) and I.G.P. v. Ubah (2014), and the Supreme Court decisions in Fawehinmi v. Abacha (2000) and Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019), Uwaifo argued that police officers performing public functions have no reasonable expectation of privacy, that public officials owe a duty to operate transparently, and that recording is a valid exercise of civic responsibility consistent with international best practices.

The Attorney-General of the Federation, the 4th Respondent, represented by Maimuna Lami Shiru (Mrs.), Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law at the Federal Ministry of Justice filed a written address but did not file a counter-affidavit, meaning the applicant’s affidavit evidence stood unchallenged and was deemed admitted.