In a landmark judgment, a Federal High Court in Warri, Delta State, has affirmed the constitutional right of all Nigerian citizens to record and publish matters of public interest, including the conduct of law enforcement agents performing their official duties in public spaces, and declared as unlawful and unconstitutional any attempt to prevent citizens from exercising this right or punish them through threat of arrest, harassment or seizure of their devices.
In a 36-page judgment delivered on March 17, 2026, in which he elaborated the scope of the constitutional rights of citizens to freely express themselves and access information, Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa also declared that the acts of police officers engaging in patrols, stop and search operations and other public interactions without wearing uniforms that visibly display their names and force numbers is unconstitutional, illegal and a breach of Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Constitution and the Police Act.
The judgment arose from a public interest suit filed by a lawyer, Mr. Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo, for fundamental rights enforcement for himself and in the interest of the Nigerian public, against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the Police Service Commission (PSC), and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
In an Originating Summons filed on July 31, 2025, pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as relevant provisions of the Police Act, 2020 and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, the lawyer challenged the legality of certain policing practices, including the harassment of citizens for recording police officers and the conduct of stop-and-search operations by officers who conceal their identities.
He contended, among other things, that the persistent practice of police officers operating without name tags, force numbers, or identifiable uniforms creates an atmosphere of impunity, facilitates abuse, and renders it practically impossible for victims of misconduct to seek redress, arguing that attempts by police officers to prevent citizens from recording them while performing public duties constitute a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and access to information.
In support of his claims, Mr. Uwaifo deposed to a 32-paragraph affidavit in which he recounted his personal encounters with officers along the Benin–Warri road and at Effurun in Delta State, where he was stopped by armed men suspected to be police officers who neither identified themselves nor disclosed the basis for their actions, and who threatened to arrest him for attempting to record the interaction.
Police authorities and the Police Service Commission did not file any response to the suit and were not represented by any lawyer throughout the proceedings, despite being served with the court processes. The Attorney-General of the Federation, however, filed a counter-affidavit in which he urged the court to dismiss the suit. He was also represented at the hearing by Mr. O.F. Ezekhaigbe.
Delivering judgment, Justice Nganjiwa, held that Mr. Uwaifo had established his case through credible and uncontroverted affidavit evidence, noting that the Respondents failed to file any counter-affidavit to challenge the facts presented before the Court despite being served with the court processes.
Noting that where facts deposed to in an affidavit are not challenged, they are deemed to be admitted, and the Court is entitled to rely on them, the judge said he accepted Mr. Uwaifo’s account of repeated encounters with unidentified police officers engaging in unlawful stop-and-search operations and acts of intimidation.
On the issue of identification of police officers, Justice Nganjiwa held that the provisions of Section 50(4) of the Police Act, 2020 are clear and mandatory, requiring that any police officer conducting a stop-and-search operation must be in proper uniform or visibly display a valid police identity card, adding that any operation carried out in breach of this requirement is unlawful and constitutes an abuse of power.
He further held that the failure or refusal of police officers to wear identifiable name tags or display force numbers violates the constitutional rights of citizens, including the rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy, and freedom of expression, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
On the right of citizens to record police officers, the Court held that Section 39 of the Constitution guarantees the right to receive and impart information, which includes the right to record and document matters of public interest, particularly the conduct of law enforcement agents performing public duties in public spaces.
Justice Nganjiwa rejected any justification for the harassment of citizens engaged in such recording, emphasizing that recording police activities does not amount to obstruction unless there is physical interference with law enforcement duties.
He noted that in the modern digital era, audio-visual recordings constitute an important tool for transparency and accountability and are admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011.
According to him, “a police officer performing official duties in a public space cannot shield his actions from public scrutiny,” adding that any attempt to suppress such scrutiny through threats, arrest, or seizure of devices is unconstitutional and unlawful.
The judge held that the Inspector-General of Police and the Nigeria Police Force bear a statutory and constitutional duty to regulate, supervise, and discipline officers under their command, while the Police Service Commission has oversight responsibility in ensuring compliance with professional standards.
He also addressed the objection raised by the Attorney-General of the Federation regarding his joinder in the suit and held that the Attorney-General is a proper and necessary party in matters involving constitutional interpretation and the legality of actions of federal agencies, being the Chief Law Officer of the Federation.
Justice Nganjiwa expressed concern over what he described as a growing pattern of abuse by unidentified police officers, noting that such practices undermine public confidence in law enforcement and expose citizens to arbitrary violations of their rights, stressing that where the law prescribes a specific method for carrying out a statutory duty, any deviation from that method renders the action null and void.
Having found that Mr. Uwaifo’s fundamental rights had been violated, he held that the lawyer was entitled to the reliefs sought. Consequently, he granted the following declarations:
• A declaration that Mr. Uwaifo and Nigerians are entitled under Section 39 of the Constitution to express themselves freely, including by recording and publishing matters of public interest, including the conduct of law enforcement agents performing public duties in public spaces.
• A declaration that any attempt by police officers to prevent or punish such acts or recording through threat of arrest, harassment, or seizure of devices is unconstitutional, unlawful and a violation of fundamental rights under Sections 34, 35 and 39 of the Constitution.
• A declaration that the acts of police officers engaging in patrols, stop and search operations and other public interactions without wearing uniforms that visibly display their names and force numbers is unconstitutional, illegal and a breach of Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Constitution and of the Police Act.
The judge also issued the following orders:
• An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their officers, agents, privies or any person acting under their instructions from further harassing, intimidating, threatening, arresting or otherwise infringing the rights of Mr. Uwaifo or any Nigerian for video recording police officers on duty in public.
• An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, officers or privies from further engaging in stop and search or checkpoint operations without ensuring that all operatives wear uniforms bearing their full names and force numbers.
• An order directing the IGP, the NPF and the PSC to issue clear directives and training guidelines to all officers of the Nigeria Police Force, affirming the public’s right to record and report police activities conducted in public spaces, including at checkpoints and during stop and search operations.
• An order mandating the NPF and the PSC to discipline any officer found to have acted in breach of this right.
• An order mandating the PSC to issue a circular or directive mandating all officers on public engagement duties to wear full uniforms with identification and to initiate disciplinary action against defaulters.
The judge awarded N5 million against the Respondents jointly and severally to Mr. Uwaifo as compensation for the infringement of his fundamental rights as guaranteed under Section 34(1), 35(1), 37 and 39(1) of the Constitution. He also awarded him costs of N2 million against the Respondents for prosecuting the case.
