In a recent development, a federal high court in Lagos has dismissed a case against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) regarding its directive for banks to collect and verify social media handles as part of their know-your-customer (KYC) requirement.
Gatekeepers News reports that the directive, issued by the apex bank in June 2023, aimed to enhance measures against financial crime and terrorism, as well as improve the accuracy and thoroughness of customer identification.
The applicant, Chris Eke, represented by lawyer Olubunmi Abayomi-Olukunle, filed suit number FHC/L/CS/1281/2023 in July 2023, arguing that the CBN’s directive violated constitutional rights, specifically section 37 of the 1999 constitution.
Presiding judge Nnamdi Dimgba struck out the suit, which sought a declaration that the regulation contained in section 6(a)(iv) of the CBN (customer due diligence) Regulations, 2023, is “undemocratic, unconstitutional, null and void.”
The CBN responded to the suit by filing a notice of preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the suit and disagreeing with the claim of interference with the applicant’s private life.
In his judgment, Dimgba ruled that the notice of preliminary objection had merit and subsequently struck out the suit, stating that providing a social media handle is akin to providing email and phone numbers for potential customers, hence it does not violate the right to privacy.
“First, the applicant claims that the requirements on the CBN regulations for financial institutions to request and collect the social media handle of its customers as part of KYC infringes on his right to privacy,” the judge said.
“This claim is very ambitious and amounts to a very far throw. The said regulations are directed to and apply to financial institutions. It does not apply to private individuals such as the applicant.
“Even if, as appears to be argued, that the regulations itself would inevitably affect the applicant, this claim is speculative for the simple reason that in nowhere in the affidavit in support was it stated that the applicant operates an account with a financial institution and that the said institution had demanded his social media handle.”
Consequently, the judge said the suggestion that he would be negatively affected by the regulation is very “speculative and at large”.
He said there is a lack of evidence suggesting financial institutions have implemented the regulation, and it is causing disruptions and inconvenience.
Furthermore, Dimgba said if the applicant is “irritated by the requirement of the regulation”, he has a choice to “refuse to do business with any bank insisting on the information as part of its social media handle, but to seek other alternatives”.
Dimgba said banks asking customers or potential clients to provide their social media handles is not a breach of privacy.
He said the essence of having a social media account was for one to be publicly visible communication-wise.
According to the judge, a social media handle, being in the public space, can be accessed by everyone whether or not consent was obtained.
As a result, he said it would be unreasonable to hold the respondent in breach of privacy.
“The apprehension of the Applicant of his social interactions being monitored is manifestly speculative in itself and rather incredulous to believe that the financial institutions have the luxury of time to concern itself with such frivolities,” the judge said.
Striking out the suit, the judge made no order regarding costs.
