SANs counter IG, say Nigerians have right to record officers

Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Olu Daramola, Olalekan Ojo and Isiaka Olagunju, have said Nigerians have the right to record police officers while performing their duties in public spaces.

While Daramola said the right was backed by a subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court, Ojo said recording police activities could promote transparency and preserve evidence, but cautioned that citizens could expose themselves to danger in some circumstances.

Olagunju said the IG might have a point on privacy and safety, but maintained that recording public officers who failed to perform their duties properly should be encouraged.

The lawyers were reacting to the recent position of the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, who criticised a court decision encouraging Nigerians to record police officers in different situations, describing the development as “very, very demoralising” for the police.

However, Daramola, in a statement on Friday, said the law was settled on the matter, citing the judgment of Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa in Maxwell Uwaifor vs Inspector-General of Police.

He said, “The law as it stands today is that Nigerians have the right to record police officers on duty in public spaces.

“The judgment was handed down by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court in Maxwell Uwaifor v IG since March last year. It remains binding and subsisting.”

According to the SAN, the court went beyond recognising the right to record police officers by directing that officers should display visible name tags and force numbers to facilitate their identification.

He added that the judgment also prohibited the seizure of mobile phones and deletion of footage recorded by members of the public.

Daramola said the decision was consistent with Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information.

He argued that the constitutional protection covered the documentation of public officials performing their duties, provided such documentation did not interfere with lawful police operations.

“The judgment cannot be faulted going by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information, which covers documenting public officials.

“The only limitation is that you cannot obstruct or prevent a police officer from performing his lawful duties,” he said.

The SAN also noted that the practice of documenting police activities was not peculiar to Nigeria, pointing to the use of body cameras by police officers in several countries.

He said police officers performing their duties lawfully should have nothing to fear from members of the public recording them.

“A police officer carrying out his lawful duties in a lawful manner has nothing to fear.

“Therefore, the position of the NBA represents the law. The IG pronouncement cannot override the law, as he and his officers are duty-bound not only to obey the decision of the court but also to ensure that it is enforced to the letter,” Daramola said.

Ojo also backed the NBA’s position on citizens’ right to record police officers on duty, saying such recordings would promote transparency, preserve evidence and could discourage misconduct.

He, however, cautioned citizens to consider their safety before recording police officers, noting that some officers could react violently when they realise they are being filmed.

He added that recording police activities should not merely be viewed as an issue of transparency, but also as a means of gathering and preserving evidence.

“Recording in Nigeria today, in my view, also constitutes a form of evidence gathering and preservation.

“Indeed, with the greatest respect to the IG, it is through such recordings that some members of the police force, who could have denied any form of wrongdoing, were successfully apprehended and disciplined.

“Without such recordings, such disciplinary action, including apprehension, would have been impossible or difficult,” he said.

Ojo added that knowing that their activities could be recorded would make police officers more conscious of their conduct while performing their duties.

He said, “If the police know, as they now know, that their activities may be recorded, then they will be much more careful as to what they do in the course of discharging their duties.

“So, I agree, it makes for transparency. It also enhances good conduct on the part of the police.

“If nobody has anything to hide, if nobody has anything to be afraid of, why should you be afraid of being recorded? If what you are doing is good, it is even good for you. They should record you and let the whole world know that this is a very good police officer.”

The lawyer, however, acknowledged that recording police officers could expose members of the public to danger, particularly where an officer fears that the recording could lead to disciplinary action.

Ojo said he had encountered cases where police officers became angry after discovering that they were being recorded and reacted aggressively.

“I have seen cases where police officers, upon discovering that they were being recorded, got angry and decided to do the unthinkable and the unspeakable,” he said.

According to him, an officer who believes a recording could cost him his job might attempt to seize or destroy the phone or harm the person making the recording.

He said this could have been the concern behind the IGP’s position, adding that citizens should therefore weigh their safety before deciding to record.

“Perhaps that is the angle from which the IG was looking at it. So, you have to balance it. You have to use your sense. Is it safe to record? If it is safe to record, go ahead and record.

“If it is not safe, you are the only one there. I will advise you not to record, because if you are caught, anything can happen,” Ojo said.

Similarly, Olagunju said the IG might have a point in cautioning against indiscriminate recording of police officers, particularly on the grounds of privacy and safety.

Olagunju, however, said there were circumstances where members of the public should be encouraged to record police officers or other public officials who failed to perform their duties properly.

He said recording public officers in such situations could help promote accountability and provide evidence of misconduct.

“The IG may be right to some extent because of privacy and safety of the police officers. However, in some circumstances, recording a police officer or any other public officer who is derelict in his or her duty should also be encouraged,” Olagunju said.