By Anthony Ochela, Abuja
Nigeria Data Protection Commission, NDPC, has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by Meta Platforms Incorporated challenging the sanctions imposed on it.
NDPC had on February 18 imposed a remedial fee of $32,800,000 and eight corrective orders against Meta Inc.
The American multinational technology company was alleged to have violated the fundamental privacy rights of its Nigerian users with respect to behavioural advertising on Facebook and Instagram.
Dissatisfied with the action, Meta in a motion ex-parte dated and filed on February 26 dragged the regulatory agency to court as sole respondent.
In the motion ex-parte marked FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025 and moved by Fred Onuofia (SAN) on March 4, the court granted one of the two orders sought.
The court had granted leave to Meta to commence proceedings by way of judicial-review seeking, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the compliance and enforcement orders dated February 18 issued by NDPC against the company, “and other investigations, proceedings and actions taken by the respondent against the applicant leading to the ‘Final Orders.”
It, however, refused to grant Meta’s relief seeking a stay of the proceedings of all matters relating to the final orders issued by NDPC against it, pending the hearing and determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Instead, the court made an order of accelerated hearing of the suit.
The firm in its originating summons filed by its lead counsel, Professor Gbolahan Elias (SAN), wants the court to determine whether NDPC’s investigative process and ensuing compliance and enforcement orders issued on February 18 are invalid, null and void.
Meta in its application dated March 19, hinged the question on the allegation that the commission failed to provide it with adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard on alleged violations of the NDP Act prior to issuing the final orders.
It argued that such action violated its due process rights, including its right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among other reliefs.
But NDPC in a preliminary objection to Meta’s suit told the court that it was incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same.
The regulatory agency in its application dated April 10 and filed on April 11 by its lawyer and Head of ALPHA & ROHI Law Firm, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), urged the court to either strike out or dismiss the case.
Adedipe, in two grounds of argument, submitted that the originating summons filed by the company is incompetent for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 34 Rule 6(1) of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
Quoting the provision, the lawyer said: “No ground shall be relied upon or any relief sought at the hearing, except the grounds and reliefs sought in the statement.”
He also argued that the suit, as presently constituted, is grossly incompetent and academic, the reliefs sought therein, not being capable of activating the jurisdiction of the court.
It averred that there was a statement made pursuant to Order 34 of the Rules of the court supporting the said application, containing the company’s two reliefs.
It said the court granted permission on March 4 for Meta to commence the proceeding, by way of judicial review.
According to the respondent, the originating summons filed by the plaintiff was commenced on 19th March, 2025, 15 days after leave was granted for the judicial review proceedings to be commenced.
NDPC, however, contended that the reliefs contained in the originating summons were completely different from the reliefs contained in the statement filed to support the ex-parte application for judicial review.
It said it believes that this error on the part of Meta was fundamental and “the defendant/applicant does not intend to waive its right to object, in this regard.”
Also in a counter affidavit deposed to by NDPC’s staff, Osunleye Olatubosun, in opposition to the originating summons filed by Meta on March 19, he said the suit was brought under the judicial review procedure, primarily, to contest the decision of his office against Meta.
Olatubosun averred that in the NDPC ‘s decision, Meta was sanctioned after a protracted and thorough process of investigation.
He said the investigative power of the commission was activated by a petition written by an organisation, the Personal Data Protection Awareness Initiative, PDPAI.
PDPAI had alleged that the company breached the data protection rights of users of Facebook and Instagram.
He averred that in the said petition, the plaintiff was alleged to be engaging in behavioural advertising without obtaining explicit consent of data subjects (users).
He said compelling evidence were provided in support of the petition, revealing Meta’s private policy showing that it conducted behavioural advertising, without obtaining consent from the data subjects.
The officer in the counter affidavit dated and filed on April 30, described behavioural advertisement as “a special form of targeted advertising, where consumers are shown advertisements based on their behavioural data.”
He said it was a kind of advertising which collects and tracks individual sensitive information, without their knowledge or consent, to either share with third parties, or to decide specialised advertisements to be shown to the consumers.
Olatubosun said during investigation, NDPC drew the company’s attention to some very disturbing violations in this regard, especially as to non-consensual data processing activities.
He said these included the disclosure of sensitive personal data of minors relating to their sex lives; sensitive personal data of minors involving drug use; and sensitive personal data of minor pupils in school, involving erotic dancing.
He said it also revealed sponsored advertisements on gambling, involving the manipulated personal data of a female journalist on TVC; sponsored advertisement on gambling involving the manipulated personal data of a male journalist on Channels; and manipulated personal data of public figures, conspiring to commit a felony; explicit video of a woman delivering a child, with her genitals in full display, etc.
He said Meta was, therefore, found in breach of certain provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection, NDP, Act, and that its promotion of debasing images outside the expectation of concerned data subjects offended the principles of fairness, lawfulness, transparency, accountability and duty of care.
Besides, the officer said failure of the company to file a compliance audit with the commission for the year 2022, was a breach of the NDP Act.
He equally said cross border transfer of data by Meta contravened mandatory requirements under the NDP Act.
Meanwhile, other reliefs sought by Meta in the main suit include whether NDPC’s initiation of its investigation, based on a petition submitted by an organisation, rather than on a complaint filed by a “data subject” (as defined under Section 65 of NDPA), invalidates the investigation and the “Final Orders.”
It also prayed the court for an order of certiorari, quashing the investigation, all proceedings constituted thereby, as well as the ensuing “Final Orders” issued by the commission against it.
It equally sought an order of injunction restraining NDPC from enforcing or taking steps to enforce any or all of the orders and/or intimidating, harassing or coercing the applicant to pay the purported remedial fee as contained in the Final Orders.
Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter until October 3 for consolidated ruling on the preliminary objection and motion to amend.
