Don’t arrest citizens for recording police on duty, RULAAC tells police

Stanley Ihedigbo

Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has defended the right of citizens to record police officers performing official duties in public, describing such recordings as an important safeguard for accountability rather than an attack on police morale.

RULAAC, in a statement by its Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, was reacting to comments by the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tunji Disu, on the recording of police officers by members of the public.

The Inspector-General had acknowledged that citizens have the right to record police officers carrying out their duties in public, but expressed concern over indiscriminate recording, particularly when officers are allegedly turned into social-media or skit content in ways that could embarrass or demoralise them.

His comments followed a Federal High Court judgment affirming citizens’ right to record police officers conducting stop-and-search operations in public.

RULAAC said there was a legitimate distinction between recording police officers while performing official duties for evidence, personal protection and accountability, and deliberately filming officers during private or off-duty moments to ridicule, harass or turn them into entertainment.

The organisation urged citizens to exercise the right responsibly, stressing that members of the public should not physically obstruct police operations, provoke officers, interfere with arrests or investigations, or unjustifiably intrude into the private lives of police personnel.

However, it warned that such qualifications must not be transformed into a vague doctrine of “restraint” capable of discouraging citizens from documenting police conduct in public.

According to RULAAC, Nigeria’s experience has demonstrated the importance of citizen recordings in documenting alleged extortion at checkpoints, assault, unlawful arrests, brutality and other forms of police misconduct.

The organisation noted that in encounters involving armed state officials and ordinary citizens, where there is an inherent imbalance of power, the ability to document events can protect both parties.

It explained that a recording could provide evidence against an officer accused of misconduct, while equally serving to vindicate an officer who had been falsely accused.

“Recording should not automatically be viewed as hostility towards the Police,” RULAAC maintained.

The advocacy group also acknowledged the difficult conditions under which many police officers operate, including long working hours, deployment to dangerous locations and inadequate welfare, equipment and logistical support.

It, however, argued that improving police morale should primarily involve better welfare, equipment, training, working conditions, insurance, housing, promotion systems and institutional support rather than reducing legitimate public scrutiny.

RULAAC said professional policing requires officers to become increasingly comfortable with legitimate scrutiny while carrying out public functions.

The group also cited the position of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, who, it said, had emphasised that transparency in the lawful execution of police duties should not be feared and had pointed to body-worn cameras as an accountability mechanism.

RULAAC consequently urged the Nigeria Police Force to accelerate the institutionalisation of body-worn cameras and other technology-based accountability systems.

It called for a transparent national framework covering the activation, preservation and access to footage, privacy protections, evidential use and sanctions for deliberately disabling or manipulating recording devices.

The organisation further urged police authorities to issue clear operational guidance nationwide, stating that citizens should not be arrested, assaulted, threatened, have their telephones seized or be compelled to delete footage merely because they recorded police officers performing official duties in a public place.

It said that where recording genuinely obstructs a police operation or violates an identifiable law, officers should respond according to the law rather than treating the mere presence of a camera as an offence.

RULAAC summarised its position by stating: “Record police performing public duties — yes; obstruct police operations — no; document misconduct or an encounter for evidence and accountability — yes; harass, ridicule or invade the genuinely private activities of individual officers merely for social-media entertainment — no.”

The organisation said the balanced approach would protect police officers without weakening citizens’ rights.

It added that public confidence in the police would not be strengthened by fewer cameras, but by a system in which officers know that professionalism can protect them even when cameras are present, while citizens are confident that recording lawful public activity will not expose them to arrest, intimidation or retaliation.