Nigerians Have Right to Film Police on Duty, Lawyer Counters IGP Warning

Legal practitioner, Inibehe Effiong, has challenged the Inspector-General of Police, Tunji Disu, over his warning against Nigerians recording police officers for social media skits. Effiong argued that Nigerians have the right to record law enforcement officers while they perform their statutory duties in public. The lawyer made the remarks on Friday during an interview with Channels Television. Disu had warned Nigerians against recording police officers for skits, describing the practice as “very, very demoralising” to members of the force. The IGP clarified that his concern was not about citizens’ right to record police officers, but about using policemen as sources of content for social media. However, Effiong questioned what qualifies as content creation and whether the key consideration should be financial gain or public enlightenment. He said, “What is content creation? Is it materials generated and disseminated or published or circulated for revenue generation? Or is it simply posting information for public enlightenment? “What is the determining factor? Is it the quest for financial gain or public enlightenment? And who is the content creator?” Effiong argued that the broad definition of content creation could also apply to the Nigeria Police Force because the institution operates several platforms through which it produces and shares information. “Because if you examine the phrase content creator and content creation broadly, one can say that even the police itself is a content-creating institution,” he said. He pointed out that the police maintains social media handles, a website and a radio station, among other platforms, where it creates and disseminates content. “The reason is that the police owns and operates different platforms through which contents are created and disseminated, including the police social media handles, the website of the police, and other platforms, and even the police radio,” he said. The lawyer said the police therefore needed to clarify what the IGP meant by using police officers for content creation. He specifically questioned whether the warning targeted skit makers, entertainers and pranksters who earn a living from producing humorous content online. “So when the IG speaks about using policemen for content creation, it is important for us to be cautious. Is it referring to skit makers, entertainers or pranksters who are individuals who make a career or make a living from making comical contents and reproducing them online to generate traffic as a source of living?” he asked. Effiong also questioned why the police appeared concerned about citizens recording officers while they were carrying out their duties. “The question is, why is the police constantly fidgeting over the recording of their officers in the course of their duties?” he asked. Disu had cited instances of Nigerians filming police officers while they were eating as part of his concerns about the practice. Effiong, however, said he had not seen evidence that such incidents were widespread on social media. “He cited an instance where he said police officers would be eating and people would be filming them. I haven’t seen that being a practice that is rampant on social media,” he said. He called on the police to provide examples to support the concern raised by the IGP. “So I would be happy if the police can cite some instances to portray the fact that the IG has referenced,” Effiong said. The lawyer maintained that Nigerians have a constitutional right to record police officers and other law enforcement personnel while they perform their official duties in public. “But speaking generally, Nigerians have the right, unmistakably, to record incidents. Not just the police, but law enforcement officers generally, in the course of discharging their statutory responsibility,” he said. Effiong cited Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, as the legal basis for the right. “That freedom includes the freedom to disseminate and propagate ideas and information,” he said. He added that the constitutional protection covers the various means people use to disseminate information, including mobile phones and other electronic devices. “Within the current constitutional framework, the right of the Nigerian people, the right of every person to record officers in public places usually, while exercising public responsibilities is important,” he said.

Lawyer Alleges Illegal Organ Harvest in Abuja, Claims Kidneys Sold for N1.5m

  Abubakar Marshal, lawyer to social media activist VeryDarkMan, has alleged that a young man whose left kidney was unlawfully removed in Abuja received about N1.5 million following the procedure. Marshal made the allegation during a televised interview monitored by Vanguard, claiming that the young man was given about $1,300, which he said was equivalent to approximately N1.5 million at the time. According to him, the case came to the attention of the Martins Vincent Center initiative, MRI, headed by VeryDarkMan, after the young man approached the organisation alleging that his left kidney had been removed. He said the organisation initially expressed doubts about the claim and asked the young man to obtain medical evidence. Marshal said: “The young man came back with a medical report that showed the absence of his left kidney. We were curious ourselves, so we decided to verify the medical document he brought. “We went to two separate hospitals in Abuja, a reputable private hospital and another government hospital, which is the Federal Medical Centre in Jabi, Abuja, where it was confirmed that indeed, the young man’s left kidney had been removed.” The lawyer alleged that after the kidney was harvested, the young man was given about $1,300 “just to take this and shut up.” He further alleged that the young man’s identity was changed through an affidavit in which he was given a different name, allegedly to conceal the transaction. According to Marshal, the young man subsequently developed complications about a month after the alleged procedure, including pus reportedly coming from the area around his left side. The lawyer alleged that the case was part of a wider pattern of illegal organ harvesting involving vulnerable youths in parts of the FCT. He claimed that several young men around the Karu, Nyanya and Mararaba axis had either come forward or were being identified in connection with similar allegations. “Most of those boys around Karu, Nyanya, Mararaba axis, a lot of them are engaged in this unlawful (practice). Some of those hospitals lure these young men into harvesting their organs illegally, without complying with the legal process,” he alleged. Marshal described the alleged practice as exploitation of poverty, claiming that some medical facilities used agents to approach young men who were in financial difficulty and lure them into organ donation. He further alleged that while some of the young men were paid relatively small amounts, kidneys were allegedly sold to recipients for millions of naira. “Some of these donees, which these hospitals sold some of these kidneys to, pay as high as N50 million to N70 million,” he claimed. The lawyer stressed that organ transplantation itself was not illegal in Nigeria, but argued that the alleged circumstances surrounding the cases amounted to criminal conduct where there was no informed consent, financial inducement or compliance with relevant legal procedures. “For the donation of an organ to be lawful, there must be informed consent of an adult person. There must also be no form of financial inducement,” he said. He cited the National Health Act and the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act as part of the legal framework applicable to organ donation and transplantation. Marshal also said the affected youths’ parents were not involved in the alleged procedures. “No family member of this young man was involved. None of their parents were involved. It was after the entire thing turned around and became an issue that their parents got involved and their parents got to know,” he said. He called for legal action against medical facilities and practitioners allegedly involved in unlawful organ harvesting, saying the alleged activities must be stopped in the FCT. It could not be independently verify the allegations, and the lawyer did not identify the specific hospitals and medical practitioners allegedly involved.

Lawyers’ Absence Stalls El-Rufai’s N1bn Suit Against ICPC, Others

  The fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and others was on Tuesday, stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja due to the absence of counsel for the respondents. El-Rufai is seeking N1bn in damages over what he described as an unlawful search of his Abuja residence. The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, is before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. When the matter was called, only Ubong Akpan appeared in court for the applicant. There was no representation for the respondents. Akpan informed the court that although the case was slated for mention, the respondents had yet to be served with the court processes. He, therefore, sought an adjournment to enable proper service. Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter until March 11 for further mention. El-Rufai had dragged the ICPC, the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation to court as 1st to 4th respondents, respectively. In the originating motion dated and filed on February 20, by his lead counsel, Oluwole Iyamu, the former governor is praying the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4, by the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court, authorising the search and seizure at his residence is invalid, null and void. He is also asking the court to hold that the warrant lacked particularity, contained material drafting errors, was ambiguous in its execution parameters, overbroad in scope and unsupported by probable cause, thereby amounting to an unlawful and unreasonable search contrary to Section 37 of the Constitution. The applicant further prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2pm by operatives of the ICPC and the police constituted a gross violation of his fundamental rights. According to him, the action breached his rights to the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the 1999 Constitution. El-Rufai also urged the court to declare that any evidence obtained pursuant to the allegedly invalid warrant is inadmissible in any proceedings against him, having been procured in breach of constitutional safeguards. He is seeking an order restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using or tendering any evidence or items seized during the search in any investigation, prosecution or proceedings involving him. The former governor further asked the court to direct the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items seized from his residence, alongside a detailed inventory. He is equally seeking N1bn as general, exemplary and aggravated damages. The breakdown of the claim includes N300m as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress and loss of personal security; N400m as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies; and N300m as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious, high-handed and oppressive conduct of the respondents. He also claimed N100m as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses. In his grounds of argument, Iyamu contended that the search warrant was fundamentally defective for allegedly lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms and overbroad directives without verifiable probable cause. He argued that the alleged defects contravened Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000, and constitutional provisions protecting citizens from arbitrary intrusion. Specifically, counsel submitted that Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath setting out reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he claimed was absent in the instant case. He further argued that Section 144 mandates a particular description of the place to be searched and the items sought in order to prevent the issuance of general warrants, but that the warrant in question vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without adequate detail. Iyamu maintained that the execution of the warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s residence and inflicted humiliation and distress. The case is expected to come up again on March 11.   Punch

Sophia Momodu’s Lawyer Demands N1bn from Davido Over Harassment Allegation

  A Lagos-based law firm, Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, has issued a pre-action notice to music star Davido, whose real name is David Adedeji Adeleke, over alleged harassment, threats to life, cyberbullying and defamation of one of its partners, Ebelechukwu Enedah. In a letter dated February 24, 2026, which was seen by our correspondent today, and addressed to Adeleke, the firm stated that it was acting on the instruction of Mrs Enedah and formally notified him of her intention to commence legal action. The letter was signed by Decency Nkume, Associate, and Nnamdi Oragwu, Partner, on behalf of Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors. “We are Counsel to Mrs Ebelechukwu Egeonu Enedah (hereinafter referred to as ‘Our Client’), on whose unequivocal instruction, we notify you of her intention to commence legal action against you,” the letter read. The firm alleged that the dispute began during proceedings in Suit No: LD/1587PMC/2024, David Adeleke v. Sophia Momodu, at the Lagos State High Court on February 12, 2026. According to the letter, Adeleke allegedly conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a litigant by becoming aggressive and verbally abusive towards Mrs Enedah, who appeared as counsel for the respondent, Sophia Momodu. “Your conduct deteriorated to such a degree that physical restraint became necessary to prevent further disruption to the proceedings,” the firm stated. It further claimed that the court directed him to apologise in open court, but that he failed to comply. “The Honourable Court directed you to apologise to Our Client in open court for your conduct, which directive you disobeyed,” the letter added. The firm also alleged that the incident spilt onto social media, accusing Adeleke and accounts allegedly affiliated with him of publishing posts that exposed Mrs Enedah to public harassment and threats. Among the statements attributed to Adeleke in the letter were: “I disgraced you in the courtroom… I was teaching you your work, you couldn’t even take it… You are a wicked human being, UR THE WORST LAWYER EVER! I BEAT YOU IN COURT!” Describing the publications as deliberate and malicious, the firm stated, “To publicly brand a lawyer of her standing as ‘THE WORST LAWYER EVER’ is not the expression of grievance. It is a deliberate and malicious act of reputational destruction.” It added that the consequences of the posts were severe. “The consequences were swift and severe. Our Client was immediately subjected to a torrent of abusive text messages, threatening telephone calls, and explicit threats to her safety and the safety of her family,” the letter read. The firm stressed that legal practitioners are entitled to carry out their professional duties without intimidation, harassment or public ridicule, particularly in matters involving the custody and welfare of a minor. In addition to demanding an immediate cessation of further commentary on the pending suit, the firm called for a public apology. “You are hereby required to issue a clear and unequivocal public statement withdrawing the defamatory statements and offering an unreserved apology to Our Client,” it stated. The law firm further said its client was demanding compensation in the sum of one billion naira (₦1,000,000,000) as damages for the alleged harassment, defamation and emotional distress. It warned that failure to comply within seven days of receipt of the letter would result in legal action. “Should you fail, refuse, or neglect to comply with the above demands within seven (7) days of receipt of this letter, Our Client shall, without further recourse to you, commence an action at the High Court of Lagos to seek the reliefs outlined herein,” the letter stated. PUNCH Online reports that Davido had in recent years been involved in a protracted custody and child support dispute with Sophia Momodu, the mother of his daughter. The matter has generated significant public attention, with both parties previously exchanging claims in court and in the media. The latest controversy appears to have stemmed from a court session linked to the ongoing custody proceedings. Following the February 12 hearing, social media posts attributed to Davido criticised the opposing counsel, triggering widespread online reactions and sparking debate over professional conduct, freedom of expression and the limits of public commentary on sub judice matters. As of the time of filing this report, Adeleke had yet to publicly respond to the allegations or the demands contained in the pre-action notice.

Two-Year Jail Term Awaits Men Profiting From Prostitution, Lawyer Warns

  A Nigerian lawyer and content creator, Timi Agbaje, has warned that any man who patronises a prostitute, lives off prostitution earnings, or frequently associates with prostitutes is committing a criminal offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment under Nigerian law. In a video shared on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday, Agbaje cited Sections 223 and 225A of the Criminal Code Act, which criminalise various forms of involvement in prostitution, including procurement, facilitation, and financial gain. According to the law, anyone who procures a girl or woman under 18 for unlawful sexual relations, induces a woman to become a common prostitute, arranges for her to leave Nigeria for prostitution, or relocates her within the country for the same purpose is guilty of a misdemeanour and could face two years’ imprisonment. Agbaje said, “Sections 223 and 225 of the Criminal Code state that any man who procures a woman or girl as a prostitute or an inmate in a brothel—that is, someone collecting a commission on another person’s body count—or a man who lives on the earnings of prostitution, resides with a prostitute, or habitually associates with prostitutes is guilty of an offence. “If the girl is a ‘hook-up’ girl and you give her access to your estate or direct her to your house, just as you are granting her access to your home, we will grant you access to prison.” Reacting to Agbaje’s statement, the Delta State Police Public Relations Officer, SP Bright Edafe, supported the claim, stating, “You see that end part? She is the victim; you are the criminal. It is sadly true.” Legal Implications of Prostitution in Nigeria Section 223 of the Criminal Code Act in Nigeria states that “Any person who: (1) procures a girl or woman who is under the age of eighteen years to have unlawful carnal connection with any other person or persons either in Nigeria or elsewhere; or (2) procures a woman or girl to become a common prostitute either in Nigeria or elsewhere; or (3) procures a woman or girl to leave Nigeria with the intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or (4) procures a woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in Nigeria, with the intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel either in Nigeria or elsewhere, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for two years. Section 225A of the Criminal Code Act in Nigeria states that: (1) Every male person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, or persistently solicits or importunes for immoral purposes in any public place, is liable to imprisonment for two years. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded, he shall also be liable to caning.” (2) Any magistrate who is satisfied, by evidence upon oath, that there is reason to suspect that any premises are being used by a female for prostitution, and that any male person residing in or frequenting the premises is living wholly or partly on the prostitute’s earnings, may issue a warrant authorising law enforcement officers to enter and search the premises and arrest the male suspect. (3) If a male person is proved to live with or habitually associate with a prostitute or is shown to exercise control, direction, or influence over her movements in a way that suggests he is aiding, abetting, or compelling her prostitution, he shall be deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution unless he can prove otherwise in court. (4) Any female who, for financial gain, exercises control, direction, or influence over the movements of a prostitute in a way that suggests she is aiding, abetting, or compelling prostitution is liable to imprisonment for two years.” Punch