Case Between Maxwell Nosakare Uwaifo and the Inspector General of Police
The Federal High Court of Nigeria, Wari Division, presided over by Justice Ganjiwa, examined the case of Maxwell Nosakare Uwaifo against the Inspector General of Police.
Incident Description
Maxwell Nosakare Uwaifo was traveling from Benin to Warri when he encountered a group of men blocking the road near the Sapele roundabout in Delta State. These individuals, who were in a Toyota Sienna, exhibited aggressive behavior. When Uwaifo attempted to record the interaction with his cellphone, one of the men, who appeared to be a police officer, threatened him, demanding that he stop filming and put his phone away.
Feeling threatened and fearing potential harm, Uwaifo decided to leave the scene. He pointed out that none of the men had visible identification or name tags and did not explain the reason behind the stop.
In June 2025, Uwaifo experienced a similar situation at the Efurun roundabout in Warri, where he was stopped by a uniformed police officer. However, this officer’s uniform lacked name tags, badges, or any other identifying features. The officer was heavily armed and issued commands aggressively, heightening Uwaifo’s sense of danger and preventing him from questioning the officer’s authority. The officer was also driving an unmarked Toyota Hilux with no police insignia, which added to Uwaifo’s fear and anxiety. These recurring incidents led Uwaifo to suffer from psychological distress and trauma whenever he encountered armed personnel in public.
Constitutional Rights at Stake
The legal issue revolves around whether the intimidation of citizens attempting to record police officers on duty infringes upon their constitutional rights. Uwaifo’s legal representation argued that the right to record police activity falls under the freedom of expression guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as well as the Freedom of Information Act 2011.
Uwaifo contended that public officials, including police officers, have a duty to allow their actions to be recorded while performing their duties in public. He maintained that there is no legal framework that prohibits citizens from documenting public servants going about their responsibilities. Moreover, he argued that any restrictions on this right must be legally justified and aimed at legitimate objectives, such as public safety.
Defense Argument
The lawyer representing the fourth defendant countered by asserting that there is no statutory requirement for police officers to wear name tags or display identification while on duty. He maintained that the public does not have the right to record officers during active police operations, such as stop-and-search activities, claiming that these actions are legally sanctioned under Nigerian law.
Furthermore, he explained that the Nigeria Police Council is primarily tasked with the overarching management of the police force and does not involve itself with operational matters. The requirement for identifiable uniforms during police interactions is regarded as an issue of operational control that resides solely with the Inspector General of Police. Thus, he argued that the other defendants were not necessary parties in this case.
Court Ruling
In its judgment, the Federal High Court affirmed that all Nigerians possess the right to record police conduct during operations including road stops, provided they do not physically obstruct the officers. The court emphasized that this right aligns with citizens’ constitutional right to privacy.
The court further ruled that while police officers are authorized to conduct stop-and-search operations in public spaces, they must either wear appropriate uniforms or display valid identification. In this instance, the absence of proper identification rendered the stop-and-search operation illegal. Therefore, the court held that the infringement upon Uwaifo’s right to record constituted a violation of his constitutional rights, awarding him £5 million in damages and £2 million in legal costs.
The court’s decision favored Uwaifo, reinforcing the importance of accountability in law enforcement and the protection of citizens’ rights.
This report is provided in collaboration with ALP NG & Co (2026) 4 CLRN.
