By BONIFACE AKARAH

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has challenged the reported position of the Inspector-General of Police, Mr Tunde Disu, that citizens recording police officers while performing their duties amounts to an invasion of privacy.

The association, in a statement signed by Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, National Coordinator of HURIWA, dated August 10, 2026, described the reported position as inconsistent with constitutional rights, democratic policing and global best practices.

HURIWA questioned whether a police officer performing official duties in a public space could reasonably claim the same expectation of privacy as a private citizen in a home or other genuinely private setting.

“HURIWA asks the IGP: Does he think Nigeria lives in the Stone Age?” the association said, arguing that citizens’ ability to observe and record police officers carrying out public duties is an important accountability mechanism.

The group drew attention to the judgment of the Federal High Court, Warri, in Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo v. Inspector-General of Police & Ors (FHC/WR/CS/87/2025), which HURIWA said held that citizens may lawfully record police officers performing public duties.

According to the association, the judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of citizens who document the conduct of public officials while they are carrying out their responsibilities.

HURIWA warned that any attempt by police officers to prevent citizens from peacefully recording activities in public, intimidate them, threaten them or seize their phones merely because they are documenting police operations could raise serious constitutional concerns.

The association cited Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, arguing that public institutions, particularly security agencies exercising coercive powers, must remain subject to legitimate public scrutiny.

“Privacy is not a cloak that public officials can deploy to shield the exercise of public power from legitimate scrutiny,” HURIWA said, rejecting what it described as a casual invocation of Section 37 of the Constitution to place police officers performing public duties beyond public observation.

The association stressed that there was a distinction between an officer’s public duties and private life, noting that police officers retained their constitutional right to privacy when off duty and engaged in genuinely private activities.

However, it argued that the circumstances were different when an officer was in uniform and performing official duties in a public place.

HURIWA also pointed to policing practices in advanced democracies, where body-worn cameras and other recording technologies are increasingly used to document interactions between law enforcement officers and members of the public.

“HURIWA says the argument that citizens recording police operations automatically amounts to an invasion of privacy is therefore dangerously overbroad,” the statement said.

The association further cited the Police Act 2020, including provisions concerning the identification of police officers, as part of its argument that transparency and accountability should remain central to legitimate policing.

It warned that discouraging citizens from recording police activities could make people afraid to document alleged misconduct, unlawful arrests, excessive use of force and other abuses.

At the same time, HURIWA acknowledged that the right to record public officials is not unlimited.

“Where a citizen actually obstructs a police operation, interferes with an investigation, or unlawfully enters a restricted area, the relevant law may apply,” the association said, adding that merely holding a phone and documenting events from a lawful position should not automatically constitute a criminal offence.

HURIWA therefore called on the IGP to clarify his position and ensure that police personnel did not interpret any directive on privacy as authority to confiscate phones, delete recordings, threaten citizens or prevent the documentation of police activities carried out in public.

The association also urged the Nigeria Police Force to adopt body-worn cameras and other transparent recording systems as part of modern policing.

“The police cannot demand accountability from citizens while simultaneously resisting the cameras that can provide an independent record of their own conduct,” HURIWA said.

The association maintained that police officers exercise public power and must therefore remain subject to legitimate public scrutiny, while stressing that citizens’ right to record public officials should not be treated as a licence to invade private life.

HURIWA called for a clear distinction between recording public power and invading private life, saying Nigeria’s democracy would be strengthened when citizens could peacefully document the conduct of public officials without intimidation.