Nigerian citizens have the right to record police during stop and search operation

MAXWELL NOSAKHARE UWAIFO v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS

FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
WARRI DIVISION

(NGANJIWA J)

FACTS

Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo (the Applicant), while travelling from Benin to Warri, was stopped shortly after the Sapele roundabout in Delta State by a group of men who blocked the road with a Toyota Sienna vehicle. The men spoke harshly and behaved in an aggressive manner. When the Applicant attempted to record the encounter on his mobile phone, one of the men—dressed in black and appearing to be a police officer, threatened to arrest him and demanded that he put his phone away immediately.

Given the hostile and intimidating nature of the encounter, the Applicant complied and quietly left the scene out of fear of possible assault, arrest, or other harm. The Applicant states that none of the men wore name tags or any form of identification. They neither introduced themselves nor disclosed the reason for stopping and searching him.

Furthermore, sometimes in June 2025, the Applicant experienced a similar incident around the Effurun roundabout axis in Warri, Delta State. On this occasion, he was stopped by armed police officers in uniform. However, the officers had no visible name tags, badges, or force numbers on their uniforms. They carried firearms and issued commands in an aggressive and intimidating manner, making it unsafe for the Applicant to question their identity or authority. Additionally, the police officers operated an unmarked Toyota Hilux vehicle, which bore no police insignia, registration number, or departmental markings. This lack of identification heightened the Applicant’s fear and uncertainty. As a result of these repeated encounters, the Applicant claimed that he had suffered emotional trauma, fear, and psychological distress, leaving him feeling vulnerable whenever he encounters armed men on the road.

One of the issues for determination was: Whether the prevention, threat or intimidation of citizens from filming, recording or documenting police officers during official duties violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression, press and access to information under Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.

ARGUMENTS

The Applicant, who is a lawyer and represented himself in court, argued that the act of recording police officers while they are engaged in the lawful execution of their duties in public falls within the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the liberty to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. The Applicant argued that this constitutional protection extends to the recording and dissemination of visual and audio information. He maintained that a police officer performing official duties in a public space cannot shield his actions from public scrutiny or claim a violation of privacy where none exists. The Applicant further contended that neither the Constitution nor any subsidiary legislation in Nigeria criminalises the act of recording public officials in the discharge of their duties.

According to the Applicant, any restriction on the exercise of this right must be justified under a law of general application and must pursue a legitimate aim, such as public safety, public order, or national security. In the absence of such justification, any harassment, intimidation, or arrest of the Applicant for recording police officers is arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional. He further submitted that the police, as agents of the State, are subject to public accountability and scrutiny. The Applicant concluded that the 1st Respondent has an institutional duty not only to prevent human rights violations but also to ensure proper training, discipline, and oversight of officers to curb systemic abuse.

In response, counsel for the 4th Respondent argued that there is no legal requirement mandating police officers on duty to wear name tags or display other forms of identification on their uniforms. He further submitted that citizens are not entitled to record police officers while they are actively discharging their statutory duties, including stop-and-search operations. According to him, the Police are empowered under the law to stop and search vehicles, persons, or premises where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and in doing so they acted within their lawful authority.

Counsel also argued that the Nigeria Police Council is only concerned with the organisation and general administration of the Police Force, and not with operational control, appointment, discipline, or dismissal of officers. On that basis, he maintained that issues relating to the wearing of name tags or force numbers during stop-and-search operations fall within operational control, which is exclusively within the powers of the Inspector General of Police, the 1st Respondent. Consequently, he submitted that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents is not a necessary or proper party to the suit.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving the issue, the Federal High Court held that:

All Nigerian citizens have the right to record police officers performing their duties, including during a road search or traffic stop, in order to document and subsequently disseminate such information for the purpose of accountability, provided that the citizen does not physically obstruct or interfere with the officers. The Court explained that the right to record the actions of police officers, particularly in relation to the stop and search of vehicles or property, is consistent with the citizen’s right to privacy as enshrined in the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Federal High Court held that while officers of the Nigerian Police are empowered to conduct stop-and-search operations in public places, including on Nigerian roads, any police officer exercising such powers must be in proper uniform or visibly display a valid police identification card. In the instant case, the stop-and-search carried out by the police officers without proper uniform or identification was held to be unlawful. In this case, the denial of the Applicant’s right to record the exercise amounted to a breach of his constitutional rights, including his right to privacy. The Federal High Court consequently awarded ₦5 million in damages jointly and severally against the Respondents, and ₦2 million as costs of action.

Issue resolved in favour of the Applicant.

Maxwell Uwaifo Esq for the Appellant.

This summary is fully reported at (2026) 4 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.