Federal High Court: Maxwell Uwaifor v IG Upholds Police Recording Right

• Senior Advocates of Nigeria confirm citizens' legal right to record police officers performing duties in public spaces.
• This right is upheld by a binding Federal High Court judgment in *Maxwell Uwaifor v Inspector-General of Police* delivered by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa in March 2026.
• The judgment mandates police to display identification and prohibits the seizure of phones or deletion of recorded footage.
• The Inspector-General of Police criticized the ruling, but legal experts assert it aligns with Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution on freedom of expression.
• Recording promotes transparency and preserves evidence, though citizens are advised to consider personal safety during such encounters.

The Federal High Court's binding judgment in *Maxwell Uwaifor v Inspector-General of Police* not only affirms the right to record but also explicitly prohibits the seizure of mobile phones and the deletion of recorded footage by officers.

Leading legal professionals in Nigeria have unequivocally affirmed the right of citizens to record police officers while they perform their duties in public spaces. This stance comes in direct response to recent criticisms from Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, who described a court decision encouraging such recordings as "very, very demoralizing" for the police force.

Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) — Olu Daramola, Olalekan Ojo, and Isiaka Olagunju — have collectively asserted that this right is not merely a matter of public interest but is firmly rooted in a subsisting judicial pronouncement. Their unified position underscores the legal precedent that empowers Nigerians to document police activities, thereby promoting accountability and transparency within law enforcement operations.

The legal foundation for this right is a binding judgment issued by the Federal High Court in the case of *Maxwell Uwaifor v Inspector-General of Police*. Delivered by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa in March 2026, this ruling is considered definitive on the matter, establishing a clear precedent for the right to record police officers on duty in public areas.

Beyond simply recognizing the right to record, the Federal High Court's judgment in *Maxwell Uwaifor v IG* also includes crucial directives aimed at enhancing transparency and protecting citizens. The court mandated that police officers must display visible name tags and force numbers to facilitate identification. Furthermore, the ruling explicitly prohibits the seizure of mobile phones and the deletion of any footage recorded by members of the public, safeguarding the integrity of recorded evidence.

According to SAN Olu Daramola, the Federal High Court's decision is entirely consistent with Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information. This constitutional provision, he argues, inherently covers the documentation of public officials performing their duties, with the sole limitation being that such actions must not obstruct or interfere with lawful police operations. This interpretation firmly establishes the Nigerian freedom of expression police recording right.

Despite this clear legal and constitutional backing, Inspector-General Olatunji Disu has voiced strong opposition to the court's stance. However, Daramola emphasized that the IG's pronouncement cannot override established law, asserting that police officers are duty-bound to obey and enforce court decisions. SAN Isiaka Olagunju, while acknowledging potential concerns regarding privacy and safety, maintained that encouraging the recording of public officers who fail to perform their duties properly is vital for public oversight.

The ability to record police interactions is seen by legal experts as a critical tool for promoting transparency and preserving evidence. SAN Olalekan Ojo highlighted that such recordings can serve as a powerful deterrent against misconduct and provide invaluable documentation in cases where disputes or allegations arise. This perspective underscores the significance of the Nigeria right to record police officers judgment as a mechanism for accountability.

While advocating for the right to record, Ojo also cautioned citizens to prioritize their personal safety, noting that some officers might react negatively or violently when being filmed. Nevertheless, the practice of documenting police activities is not unique to Nigeria, with Daramola pointing to the widespread use of body cameras by law enforcement in other countries. He concluded that police officers performing their duties lawfully and ethically should have no reason to fear being recorded by the public.

Lawyers should be aware of the binding Federal High Court judgment in *Maxwell Uwaifor v IG* affirming citizens' right to record police officers in public, which also prohibits phone seizure and deletion of footage. This precedent is crucial for advising clients on their rights during police encounters and for challenging police actions or gathering evidence in Nigeria.

Source: Based on recent legal commentary.