Can you Film a Police officer on Duty? What Nigerian Law Says

The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has urged Nigerians to exercise restraint when recording police officers, but a 2026 Federal High Court judgment has already affirmed citizens’ right to document police officers performing their duties in public.

Disu’s comments have reignited a debate that goes beyond social media: does a Nigerian have the legal right to bring out a phone and record a police officer during an official operation?

The answer is generally yes, particularly when the officer is carrying out official duties in a public space, although that right does not give citizens permission to obstruct police operations or harass officers.

What the Constitution says

The 1999 Constitution does not contain a provision that specifically says, “Nigerians have the right to film police officers.”

However, Section 39(1) guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to “receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”

The provision forms part of the constitutional foundation for citizens’ ability to document events around them and share information.

Section 39 is not an unlimited right. The Constitution allows certain restrictions that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and specifically recognises possible restrictions concerning members of the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies.

But there is an important distinction between a lawful restriction and a blanket prohibition on recording police officers simply because they are on duty.

What did the Federal High Court decide?

The issue became more specific after a Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, delivered judgment on March 17, 2026.

The case, Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & Others, followed an encounter in which the applicant attempted to record police officers during a stop-and-search operation.

Justice H.A. Nganjiwa held that Nigerians have a constitutional right to record, photograph and document police officers while they are performing their duties in public.

The court also directed that police officers should wear visible name tags and display their force numbers.

Importantly, the judgment held that citizens should not be harassed, intimidated, arrested or have their recording devices confiscated simply because they are documenting police activity in public.

The court awarded Uwaifo N5 million in damages and N2 million in litigation costs.

The judgment therefore established a significant judicial recognition of recording as part of citizens’ constitutional rights when police operations take place in public.

Why is the IGP asking Nigerians to be careful?

Disu’s recent comments do not appear to dispute the existence of the right recognised by the court.

Rather, the police chief is objecting to what he considers excessive use of that right.

Speaking in Abuja during a meeting involving the Nigerian Bar Association, Disu said the court judgment had caused concern within the police because officers subsequently began encountering people recording them in different situations.

He said the practice had moved beyond documenting police activities and included people filming officers in places such as restaurants.

The IGP described constant recording as demoralising and urged Nigerians not to turn police officers into content for skits.

That creates an important distinction.

A person recording a police officer during a checkpoint because they want evidence of what happens during the encounter is different from someone deliberately following an officer around and recording them for entertainment.

The first directly concerns accountability during a public duty. The second could raise separate questions about privacy, harassment or interference.

So, can you record a police officer at a checkpoint?

Generally, yes.

If a police officer stops you on a public road, conducts a search, questions you or carries out another official operation, the March 2026 judgment provides strong legal backing for documenting that encounter.

This can be particularly important when a citizen believes an officer is demanding money, threatening them, using excessive force or otherwise acting unlawfully.

A recording can preserve evidence of what happened and may subsequently be useful in a complaint or legal proceeding.

However, the right to record does not mean a citizen can physically obstruct an officer, interfere with an investigation, provoke an officer or place themselves or others in danger.

The safest legal distinction is therefore between recording an official activity and interfering with that activity.

What about filming police officers outside their official duties?

This is where the situation becomes less straightforward.

The court’s judgment concerned police officers performing law-enforcement functions in public spaces. It should not automatically be interpreted as giving citizens an unrestricted licence to record officers everywhere and at all times.

That distinction is also reflected in the current debate involving the police and the Nigerian Bar Association. The NBA has supported citizens’ ability to record officers performing public duties while also calling for clearer boundaries where an officer’s private life is involved.

Therefore, the argument is not simply “the police can never stop you from filming.”

The stronger legal position is that being a police officer does not, by itself, remove a citizen’s right to document that officer while carrying out public duties.

The bigger issue: accountability versus privacy

The disagreement ultimately reflects two competing concerns.

For the police, constant filming can make officers feel watched, distracted or turned into social-media content while carrying out dangerous duties.

For citizens, however, the ability to record public officials can provide protection against misconduct and create evidence when allegations arise.

That tension is particularly significant in Nigeria, where disputes between citizens and police officers at checkpoints and during stop-and-search operations have repeatedly generated public controversy.

The March judgment therefore places accountability on both sides: citizens have a recognised right to document public police activity, while police officers remain entitled to carry out their duties without unnecessary interference.

For now, the clearest answer is this: Nigerian law does not give police officers a blanket right to prevent citizens from filming them while they perform official duties in public. The Constitution protects freedom of expression and information, and a Federal High Court in Warri has expressly recognised the right to record police operations.

The debate now is less about whether the camera can be used and more about where lawful documentation ends and harassment or interference begins.