Lawyers have commended the act of recording police officers while carrying out official duties in public, stating that it is generally a legitimate tool of public accountability and does not automatically amount to an invasion of privacy.

However, they said the right to record police officers should not be abused for purposes of ridicule, social media engagement or exposing sensitive security information.

The Inspector General of Police (IGP), Tunji Disu, had cautioned Nigerians against recording police officers while on official duties.

Addressing a press conference in Abuja, Disu urged Nigerians to recognise that police officers don’t invade their offices to record them while they are carrying out their duties.

The IGP, who frowned at such, however, admitted that a Federal High Court judgment in Warri, Delta State, gave Nigerians the constitutional right to record police officers.

Arguing the matter, a constitutional lawyer, Evans Ufeli, said police officers exercise public powers, including making arrests, conducting searches, regulating public order and, in some circumstances, using force, adding that citizens and journalists have a strong interest in documenting such activities when they occur in public.

He said the issue involved balancing the constitutional right to privacy with freedom of expression and the public interest in filming law enforcement activities.

According to him, Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered) protects the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications.

However, he noted that a police officer performing official duties in a public place could not reasonably expect the same level of privacy as a private person inside a home or during a personal conversation.

He, however, cautioned that the right to record should not be interpreted as a licence to obstruct police operations.

“The line should be drawn at purpose, location, conduct, and publication,” he said.

Ufeli said people may ordinarily record officers at checkpoints, protests, traffic stops, arrests and other public operations, provided the recording did not obstruct officers, endanger anyone, interfere with an investigation, reveal sensitive operational details or provoke violence.

He advised that recording should not be used to cross a crime scene barrier, resist a lawful order, harass officers or place a camera in an officer’s face during a volatile encounter.

Similarly, Merit Chekwube Nworie of Roy & Associates affirmed that citizens have constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of expression and access to information, adding that recording police activities could provide tangible evidence where disputes arise over what transpired between citizens and officers.

She said: “A citizen can record a police officer while carrying out official duties. That is even sanctioned by a case law currently, but it does not mean that a citizen has the right to record a police officer just to ridicule him or to record him when he is not on official duty.”

Nworie noted that recording should also not obstruct officers from performing their lawful duties or expose sensitive police operations that are not intended for public consumption.

She said recording an officer for the purpose of creating social media content, gathering likes or ridiculing the officer was different from documenting an encounter for accountability.

Nworie recommended the use of body cameras by police officers, describing it as useful for evidence gathering, information collection and improving policing, as well as keeping officers in check.

She called for a data governance framework to regulate the use, storage and handling of footage captured by body cameras.

“I think there should be a data governance framework to ensure that wearing of body cameras by police officers does not breach citizens’ right to privacy,” she said.

Also, the President, Admiralty Lawyers Society of Nigeria (ALSN), Angus Obinna Chukwuka, said recording police officers while carrying out public duties does not amount to a breach of their privacy.

Like others, he pointed out that recording an officer while carrying out a private task could constitute a breach of his privacy.

He explained that where police officers are performing public duties, particularly duties capable of significantly affecting an individual’s liberty or rights, recording is permissible.

According to him, it is important that officers know they are being recorded, noting that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 already provides for video recording when a suspect is making a statement at a police station or office of a law enforcement agency.

He said the provision was intended to ensure that statements were made voluntarily and not under duress.