THE Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that commercial banks in the country can demand customers’ social media handles, thereby striking out a case against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over its directive requiring banks to collect and verify customers’ social media handles as part of their know-your-customer (KYC) requirements.
Recall that in June last year, the apex bank issued the directive, which it said was aim to prevent financial crime, terrorism and boost the precision and thoroughness of customer identification.
The applicant, Chris Eke, a customer, represented by Olubunmi Abayomi-Olukunle, a lawyer, had in July last year filed a suit, No. FHC/L/CS/1281/2023, arguing that the CBN’s directive infringed on his constitutional rights, particularly Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
But Justice Nnamdi Dimgba dismissed the suit, which sought a declaration that the regulation, as contained in Section 6(a)(iv) of the CBN (customer due diligence) Regulations 2023, is “undemocratic, unconstitutional, null and void.”
The CBN, in its response, filed 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 verdict, the Judge held that the notice of preliminary objection had merit and subsequently struck out the suit, ruling that providing a social media handle is equivalent to providing email and phone numbers for potential customers, and therefore, 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.
“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,” he held.
He said the suggestion that the claimant would be negatively affected by the regulation is very “speculative and at large,” adding that there was a lack of evidence suggesting financial institutions have implemented the regulation and it is causing disruptions and inconvenience.
Justice Dimgba said if the applicant was “irritated by the requirement of the regulation,” he had 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.”
He ruled that banks asking customers or potential clients to provide their social media handles was not a breach of privacy, saying the essence of having a social media account was for one to be publicly visible, communication-wise, as a social media handle, being in the public space, can be accessed by everyone whether or not consent was obtained; hence it would be unreasonable to hold the respondent in breach of privacy.
He added: “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.”
In striking out the suit, the Judge made no order regarding costs.
