- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, International Law and Criminal Law topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
The Federal High Court Affirms Nigerians' Right to Record Police Officers
In a landmark judgment on 17th March 2026, the Federal High Court, Warri in the case of Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo v. I.G.P & Ors. (Suit No: FHC/WR/CS/87/2025), presided over by Justice H.A.Nganjiwa, upheld the constitutional rights of Nigerian citizens to record police officers performing their duties in public. The suit, brought by lawyer Maxwell Nosakhare Uwaifo, arose from a stop-and-search encounter where he alleged harassment for attempting to document the interaction. The court held that recording police-whether by video, photograph, or audio-is protected under Chapter IV of the Constitution, emphasising transparency, accountability, and proper law enforcement conduct.
The court declared that citizens may record officers without interference, reprisal, or confiscation of devices, and ordered that police officers must wear visible name tags and force numbers, effectively banning anonymous policing. Officers were also barred from intimidating, arresting, or seizing devices from those exercising this right. In addition to declaratory relief, the court awarded N5 million for violation of fundamental rights and N2 million for litigation costs, demonstrating that breaches carry tangible legal and financial consequences.
The decision has generated strong reactions from civil liberties groups as a pivotal step toward police accountability and protection of constitutional freedoms. Advocates have urged the Nigeria Police Force to implement the directives. By affirming this right, the court has set a precedent likely to shape future interactions between citizens and law enforcement in Nigeria, promoting compliance, transparency, and respect for civil liberties.
Meta Held Accountable: Lagos Court Upholds Privacy Rights
In a significant decision delivered on 13th January 2026, a Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square ruled in favour of prominent human rights lawyer Fami Falana, SAN, in a privacy and data protection lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., (Suit No. LD/17783MFHR/2025: Femi Falana v. Meta Platforms Inc.) the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. The court determined that Meta could not rely solely on a “mere hosting” or intermediary defence where it profits from content and the risk of harm from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable.
The case arose after a false video circulated on Facebook suggesting that Falana SAN was suffering from a terminal illness - a claim he denied and said harmed his reputation. The court held that publishing such inaccurate and half harmful personal data amounted to an invasion of privacy under Section 37 of the Constitution and breaches Nigeria's Data Protection Act 2023. It rejected Meta’s defence that it was merely A passive platform, finding that companies monetizing user content oh a duty of care to those affected by it.
The court awarded $25,000 in damages to Falana SAN, underscoring platform accountability and personal data protection obligations in Nigerian law.
This judgement marks a precedent in Nigerian jurisprudence on digital platforms’ responsibilities for harmful online content and the enforcement of data protection norms. It signals A judicial willingness to hold global technology companies liable under domestic privacy data protection frameworks - a development relevant for lawyers, technology businesses, and rights advocates alike. Civil society groups have since called for broader regulatory oversight of platforms to safeguard consumer and privacy rights.
Okoro v. Udeh: Survey Plans Not Always the Final Word in Land Disputes
In January 2026, the Supreme Court in Okoro v. Udeh ((2026) 1 NWLR (Pt 2024) 163) clarified a recurring issue in Nigerian land litigation - whether a survey plan is a mandatory requirement for providing title to land. The dispute arose from conflicting claims of ownership, with one party challenging the validity of the other party’s case on the ground that no survey plan was tended to establish the identity of the land in question.
In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that a survey plan is not a universal requirement for providing title to land. Rather, its necessity depends on the circumstances of each case. The Court emphasised that a survey plan becomes essential only where the identity or location of the land is in dispute. Where the land can be sufficiently identified through other credible evidence - such as traditional evidence, acts of possession, or clear descriptions - the absence of a survey plan is not fatal to the claim.
This decision reinforces the principle that the burden of proof in land matters is not rigidly tied to documentary evidence. While a claimant must establish the identity of the land with certainty, the means of doing so remain inflexible. The ruling therefore discourages technical objections aimed solely at defeating claims on procedural grounds where substantive evidence exists.
The case also highlights the importance of careful pleading and evidentiary planning. Counsel must assess early whether the identity of the land will be contested and determined whether a survey plan is necessary to avoid evidentiary gaps. Conversely, defendants may only successfully challenge the absence of a survey plan where genuine uncertainty exists as to the land in dispute.
Ultimately, Okoro v. Udeh reflects A pragmatic shift in judicial attitude, prioritising substance over form in land disputes. It strengthens efficiency in dispute resolution by preventing unnecessary evidentiary burdens, while still preserving the need for precision where the identity of land is genuinely in issue.
To read this Newsletter in full, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]