RULAAC defends citizens’ right to record police officers on duty, argues it safeguards accountability
The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has defended the right of citizens to record police officers while performing their official duties in public, describing the practice as an important safeguard for accountability rather than an attack on police morale.
RULAAC, in a statement signed by its Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, said there was a need to distinguish between legitimate recording of police activities for evidence, personal protection and accountability, and filming officers during private or off-duty moments for ridicule, harassment or entertainment.
The organisation was reacting to recent comments by the Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu, who acknowledged citizens’ right to record police officers performing their duties in public but expressed concern about indiscriminate recording, particularly when officers are turned into social-media or skit content.
The IGP’s comments followed a Federal High Court judgment affirming citizens’ right to record police officers conducting stop-and-search operations in public.
RULAAC said citizens should exercise the right responsibly and avoid physically obstructing police operations, provoking officers, interfering with arrests or investigations, or unjustifiably invading the private lives of police personnel.
However, it cautioned that such limitations must not become a vague requirement for “restraint” that discourages citizens from documenting police conduct in public.
According to RULAAC, citizen recordings have become an important accountability mechanism in Nigeria, particularly in cases involving allegations of extortion, assault, unlawful arrest and police brutality.
The organisation noted that photographs, audio recordings and videos made by victims, witnesses and bystanders can provide crucial evidence that may otherwise be difficult to obtain.
It argued that recording can protect both citizens and police officers because footage can substantiate allegations of misconduct while also helping to exonerate officers who have been falsely accused.
“In encounters where the power relationship between an armed state official and an ordinary citizen is inherently unequal, the ability to document what happens can protect both sides,” RULAAC said.
RULAAC acknowledged the difficult working conditions faced by many police officers, including long working hours, dangerous deployments and inadequate welfare, equipment and logistical support.
However, it argued that concerns about police morale should be addressed through improved welfare, equipment, training, working conditions, insurance, housing, promotion systems and institutional support rather than by reducing public scrutiny.
The organisation said professional policing requires officers to become comfortable with legitimate scrutiny while carrying out public functions.
It also cited the position of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, who supported transparency in the lawful execution of police duties and referred to body-worn cameras as an accountability mechanism.
RULAAC urged the Nigeria Police Force to accelerate the introduction of body-worn cameras and other technology-based accountability systems.
It said properly regulated body cameras could provide an independent record of encounters between police officers and citizens, protecting officers against fabricated allegations while providing evidence of misconduct where it occurs.
The organisation called on the IGP to develop a transparent national framework governing body-worn cameras, including rules on activation, preservation and access to footage, privacy, evidential use, and sanctions for deliberately disabling or manipulating recording devices.
RULAAC also urged police authorities to issue clear operational guidance to officers nationwide that citizens should not be arrested, assaulted, threatened, have their phones seized or be forced to delete footage simply because they recorded police officers performing official duties in a public place.
Where recording genuinely obstructs police operations or violates an identifiable law, the organisation said officers should respond according to the law rather than treating the mere presence of a camera as an offence.
