By OLUSOJI DAOMI
There are moments in the life of a nation when a single incident, seemingly ordinary at first, opens a window into a much larger conversation about power, accountability, freedom, and the relationship between citizens and the State.
This is one of such moments.
Imagine that you are travelling from Benin to Warri. The journey is smooth until you approach a checkpoint. Suddenly, some armed men stop your vehicle. They begin to question you aggressively. Their vehicle has no official markings. There are no visible police insignia. No name tags. No force numbers. Nothing to show who they are.
You become uncomfortable.
You become suspicious.
You become afraid.
After all, Nigeria has had a complicated history with roadblocks, checkpoints, extortion allegations, and encounters between citizens and security personnel.
So you do what millions of Nigerians would instinctively do in the age of smartphones. You bring out your phone to record what is happening. Then one of the armed men threatens to arrest you.
What would you do?
Would you insist on your rights?
Would you keep recording?
Or would fear compel you to obey?
That was the dilemma that confronted legal practitioner Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo sometime in May 2025 while travelling from Benin to Warri. According to court records, he was stopped near the Sapele Roundabout by officers whom he could not properly identify. They allegedly operated from an unmarked black Toyota Sienna without police markings or licence plates. None of the officers displayed visible name tags or force numbers. When he attempted to record the encounter with his phone, he was allegedly threatened and intimidated into stopping.
Many Nigerians would have complained privately and moved on.
Many would have narrated the experience to friends and family.
Many would have posted their frustrations on social media.
But Maxwell Uwaifo chose a different route.
He went to court.
And in doing so, he asked questions whose answers affect every Nigerian.
Can police officers operate anonymously while dealing with members of the public?
Can a citizen record police officers carrying out public duties?
Can a police officer seize your phone because you are filming him?
Can a citizen be arrested simply for documenting a public interaction with law enforcement officers?
These questions eventually found their way before the Federal High Court sitting in Warri, presided over by Justice Hyeladzira A. Nganjiwa.
The answers provided by the court may well become one of the most important judicial pronouncements on police accountability and citizens’ rights in recent years.
The court held that Nigerians have the constitutional right to record police officers performing their official duties in public places. The court further ruled that police officers must wear visible name tags and display their force numbers while on duty. It also declared that officers cannot lawfully harass, intimidate, arrest citizens, or confiscate their phones and recording devices merely because they are documenting police activities in public spaces. The court awarded damages in favour of the applicant for the violation of his rights.
For many Nigerians, the significance of this judgment may not be immediately obvious.
Yet it is.
Very significant.
In fact, its importance extends beyond the courtroom.
To understand why, one must first appreciate a simple reality.
The police are not private citizens.
They are public officers.
They are employed with public funds.
Their salaries are paid from taxpayers’ money.
Their powers come from the law.
Their authority derives from the Constitution.
When they perform official duties in public spaces, they are carrying out public responsibilities.
This is why accountability matters.
This is why transparency matters.
This is why identification matters.
A police officer who stops a citizen on the highway should not be a mystery.
The citizen should know who is exercising authority over him.
The citizen should know the identity of the person carrying a firearm and issuing instructions.
The citizen should know who to report if misconduct occurs.
That is one of the reasons why the court considered anonymous policing unacceptable.
Consider an everyday Nigerian example.
A trader travelling from Onitsha to Lagos is stopped at a checkpoint by armed men dressed in dark clothing. They demand documents. They ask questions. They threaten arrest.
If there are no name tags, no force numbers, and no means of identification, how does the trader know whether he is dealing with genuine law enforcement officers or criminals masquerading as security personnel?
The question is not theoretical.
Nigeria has witnessed incidents where criminals impersonated security agents.
That is precisely why proper identification is not a mere administrative formality.
It is a safeguard.
It protects citizens.
It also protects genuine police officers from false accusations.
The judgment also speaks to another issue that has become increasingly important in modern society.
The mobile phone.
Today’s smartphone is not merely a communication device.
It is a witness.
It records.
It preserves evidence.
It documents events exactly as they occur.
Many of the world’s most significant human rights investigations, criminal prosecutions, and public accountability processes have been aided by videos recorded by ordinary citizens.
A video can settle disputes that arguments cannot.
A recording can reveal facts that memory may distort.
A camera does not always lie.
That is why the court recognised that citizens are entitled to document public interactions with law enforcement officers. This flows naturally from constitutional protections relating to freedom of expression and access to information in public affairs.
However, this judgment should not be misunderstood.
The court did not give citizens a licence to obstruct police work.
There is an important difference between recording and interfering.
A citizen may record.
A citizen may observe.
A citizen may document.
But a citizen should not physically obstruct an officer carrying out lawful duties
A citizen should not incite disorder.
A citizen should not compromise an ongoing security operation.
Rights and responsibilities travel together.
The Constitution protects liberty, but it also expects responsible conduct.
That balance is important.
Indeed, the greatest strength of democratic societies lies not merely in recognising rights but in exercising them responsibly.
For the Nigeria Police Force, this judgment should not be viewed as a defeat.
Far from it.
It presents an opportunity.
An opportunity to deepen professionalism.
An opportunity to strengthen public trust.
An opportunity to reinforce transparency.
Public confidence in law enforcement is built when citizens know that officers are accountable for their conduct.
The truth is that good police officers have nothing to fear from transparency.
Professional officers benefit when misconduct can be distinguished from proper conduct.
The actions of a few should never be allowed to tarnish the reputation of many.
For ordinary Nigerians, there are practical lessons here.
If you encounter police officers performing public duties in public spaces, the law now provides strong judicial support for your right to document that interaction.
If officers are on duty, they should be properly identifiable.
If your rights are violated, the courts remain available as a forum for redress.
Most importantly, this case demonstrates something many Nigerians often forget.
The Constitution is not merely a document stored in government offices.
It is a living instrument.
Its protections are meaningful only when citizens invoke them.
Rights that are never asserted gradually become rights that are forgotten.
Maxwell Uwaifo’s case reminds us that one citizen can trigger institutional change.
One citizen can clarify the law.
One citizen can help strengthen democracy.
One citizen can expand accountability.
That is precisely what happened here.
At its heart, this case was never really about a mobile phone.
It was never merely about a checkpoint.
It was never simply about a recording.
It was about something much bigger.
It was about whether power should have a face.
It was about whether authority should be accountable.
It was about whether citizens can peacefully document the exercise of public power.
Justice Nganjiwa’s answer was clear.
In a constitutional democracy, policing cannot be anonymous.
Public authority cannot hide behind invisibility.
And a citizen who peacefully records public officials performing public duties should not be treated as a criminal.
For a country still striving to deepen the rule of law and strengthen democratic institutions, that is a lesson worth remembering.
The camera in the hand of a responsible citizen is not an enemy of justice.
It can be one of its strongest allies.
READ ALSO:
Babajide Sanwo-Olu at 61: A legacy of service to Lagos
DNA test confirms unidentified body to be late Journalist Onifade’s
One killed, others injured as trailer crashes into APC procession
NDLEA uncovers another industrial scale clandestine meth lab
ScienceOpen names Nigerian media CEO, Amuchie, Expert Member
We must end exploitation of Africa’s critical minerals –Tinubu
Transition process most critical in advancing energy security –Sanwo-Olu
Senate passes State Police Bill
When will the vote seller stop cheating himself?
Tinubu reaffirms commitment to infrastructure-led devt
Alleged coup plot: Court orders probe of leak of evidence on social media
