The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the Data Privacy Lawyers Association’s (DPLAN) request to join an ongoing lawsuit filed by Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS) over control of the Bank Verification Number (BVN) database.
The ruling by Justice James Omotosho came after arguments on April 14 and was delivered on Monday. The suit was originally filed by NIBSS against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative, concerning who has authority over the BVN system.
DPLAN claimed its members’ interests in data privacy warranted inclusion, but the court held that the Attorney-General already represented the public interest and that DPLAN lacked sufficient legal standing.
Why BVN control matters for privacy and regulation
The case is significant because BVN is central to Nigeria’s financial identity system, linking biometric and banking data of millions of Nigerians. Control over the BVN database equates to power over access to sensitive personal and financial information, impacting privacy, security, and financial services regulation.
Regional and global context
Across Africa, digital identity and biometric databases have become contentious. For instance, Kenya’s Huduma Namba system faced legal challenges over privacy concerns, while South Africa debated who should govern national biometric data.
The Nigerian dispute echoes these tensions and highlights challenges in balancing state control with privacy rights. In the finance sector, control of such databases drives fintech innovation but also raises risks of misuse or monopoly control.
For example, in India, the Aadhaar biometric ID system’s data governance is frequently litigated due to concerns over financial inclusion vs. privacy. Similarly, Nigeria’s feud has economic stakes: managing the BVN system offers not only regulatory oversight but financial benefits from controlling data access and transaction verifications, which fintech firms rely on.
Digital sovereignty, civil society, and economic stakes
This case represents a broader conflict over digital sovereignty, data governance, and civil society’s role in monitoring how critical national data infrastructure is managed.
The court’s decision to exclude DPLAN narrows the legal space for data privacy advocates and civil rights groups to intervene in disputes over public digital resources.
As African economies digitise, the question of who holds authority over biometric and financial data becomes a critical issue for democratic accountability, data protection, and fair competition.
The ruling signals judicial deference to established state institutions while sidelining emerging privacy watchdogs, potentially limiting transparency and citizen engagement in digital governance.
NIBSS, mandated by laws including the Central Bank Act 2007 and the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 2020, asserts its statutory right to operate the BVN system.
The CBN and Attorney General are defendants, reflecting the contested control between regulatory bodies and operators. The feud stems from the high financial value of managing the BVN. Ownership means control over Nigerians’ biometric and banking data, which is crucial for fraud prevention, credit scoring, and fintech operations.
By controlling this data, NIBSS gains financial leverage and market power in Nigeria’s growing digital financial ecosystem. The Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative, seen as opposing NIBSS’s monopoly, filed challenges citing privacy concerns and data misuse, triggering this legal battle.
New BVN developments and what comes next
This feud comes when there’s a new development to include Nigerians in the diaspora in the financial system through remote BVN registration. Last week, NIBSS partnered with a key organisation to launch the Non-Resident BVN platform—an initiative expected to boost remittance flows, expand access to banking services, and drive economic participation from abroad.
At a time when the country seeks every opportunity for economic recovery and inclusive growth, institutional synergy is not just strategic—it is essential. The court has adjourned the substantive hearing to May 26, where the core issues of control and authority over the BVN database will be argued.
DPLAN may consider appealing the dismissal to maintain its involvement in the case. The outcome will influence how digital identity systems are governed and may set precedents on civil society’s future roles.
