Recently, the Inspector-General of Police, IGP, Tunji Disu, expressed concerns over the recording of police officers by members of the public.

While the IGP acknowledged that citizens have the right to record police officers performing their duties in public, he however, expressed concern that indiscriminate recording, particularly where officers are turned into social-media or skit content, could be embarrassing and demoralising. His comments followed a Federal High Court judgment affirming citizens’ right to record officers carrying out stop-and-search operations in public.

In dealing with this matter, we believe an important distinction must be maintained by the public.

Suffice it to say that there is a legitimate difference between recording police officers performing official duties in public for purposes of evidence, personal protection and accountability, and deliberately filming officers during private or off-duty moments merely to ridicule, harass or turn them into entertainment.

Citizens should exercise their rights responsibly. They should not physically obstruct police operations, provoke officers, interfere with an arrest or investigation, or intrude unjustifiably into the private lives of police personnel.

But these qualifications must never be transformed into a vague doctrine of “restraint” that discourages citizens from documenting police conduct in public.

Nigeria’s experience demonstrates why citizen recording has become an important accountability mechanism.

Many allegations of extortion at checkpoints, assault, unlawful arrest, brutality and other misconduct would be extremely difficult to substantiate without photographs, audio recordings or videos made by victims, witnesses and bystanders.

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. A recording can substantiate an allegation against an officer, but it can equally vindicate an officer who has been falsely accused.

For that reason, recording should not automatically be viewed as hostility towards the Police.

Police morale and public accountability are not mutually exclusive

As a responsible media house, we recognise the extremely difficult conditions under which many Nigerian police officers work. Officers are frequently deployed for long hours, sometimes in dangerous locations, with inadequate welfare, equipment and logistical support. The IGP legitimately drew attention to some of these realities.

But the solution to low police morale should principally be improved welfare, equipment, training, working conditions, insurance, housing, promotion systems and institutional support — not reduced public scrutiny.

Professional policing requires officers to become increasingly comfortable with legitimate scrutiny while performing public functions.

The NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, therefore made an important point when she observed that transparency in the lawful execution of police duties should not be feared and referred to body-worn cameras as an accountability mechanism.

The present debate actually strengthens the case for the Nigeria Police Force to institutionalise body-worn cameras and other technology-based accountability systems.

If properly regulated, body cameras would provide an independent record of encounters between citizens and police officers. They could protect officers against fabricated allegations while simultaneously providing evidence where misconduct occurs.

We therefore urge the IGP to accelerate the development of a transparent national framework for body-worn cameras, including clear rules governing activation, preservation of footage, access, privacy, evidential use and sanctions for deliberately disabling or manipulating recording devices.

The Police leadership should also issue clear operational guidance to officers across the country stating unequivocally that a citizen should not be arrested, assaulted, threatened, have their telephone seized or be compelled to delete footage merely because they recorded police officers performing official duties in a public place.

Where recording actually obstructs an operation or violates an identifiable law, officers should respond according to law rather than treating the mere presence of a camera as an offence.

The distinction should be straightforward:

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.

Balanced approach such as the above will protect police officers without weakening citizens’ rights.

Ultimately, public confidence in the Police will not be strengthened by fewer cameras. It will be strengthened when officers know that professionalism will protect them even when cameras are present, and citizens know that recording lawful public activity will not expose them to arrest, intimidation or retaliation.