The recent $290 million fine imposed on Meta for data protection and consumer rights violations has reignited the conversation around platform accountability. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) fined Meta for multiple and repeated breaches of Nigerian regulations, including “denying Nigerians the right to control their data, transferring and sharing Nigerian user data without authorisation, discriminating against Nigerian users compared to users in other jurisdictions, and abusing their dominant market position by forcing unfair privacy policies,” according to an FCCPC statement.
For years, civil society organisations have called for greater accountability from platform owners—demanding transparency in content moderation rules and equal treatment of individuals and organisations. Even at the individual level, many users have experienced their accounts being summarily suspended without explanation or information on how to appeal such suspensions.
Concerns persist that platforms collect data without the consent of data subjects, then store, trade, and profit from that data—contrary to the ethical principles of data collection and protection. In Europe, platforms are compelled to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), their continental data protection framework. However, in many African countries, platforms appear to disregard local laws with impunity.
Unsurprisingly, Meta’s threat has triggered a flurry of responses from civil society organisations. While concerns remain that this regulatory action could evolve into an erosion of digital rights, many are applauding the move, seeing it as a long-overdue demand for accountability from a tech giant. Their applause stems from a perception that platforms have long disregarded African laws, enjoying tolerance here while being compelled to comply with similar laws in Europe and the United States.
It is within this context that the joint action by the FCCPC and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), which supported the investigation behind the ruling, has shocked Meta into threatening to exit the country. In Europe, such a company would typically return to court to file an appeal. In Nigeria, however, Meta’s posture seems imperious—threatening to withdraw in a manner that has raised accusations of neo-colonial attitudes.
In doing so, Meta appeared to anticipate support from digital rights activists who might interpret its potential exit as a restriction on access to the platform, and therefore as a curtailment of freedom of expression and other digital rights. To some extent, this may be valid—companies subjected to unjust laws should indeed enjoy the support of all who seek justice. However, by the same token, companies cannot claim innocence while selectively deciding which countries’ laws to obey and which to flout.
Unsurprisingly, Meta’s threat has triggered a flurry of responses from civil society organisations. While concerns remain that this regulatory action could evolve into an erosion of digital rights, many are applauding the move, seeing it as a long-overdue demand for accountability from a tech giant. Their applause stems from a perception that platforms have long disregarded African laws, enjoying tolerance here while being compelled to comply with similar laws in Europe and the United States.
As commendable as this enforcement action may appear, it is essential to interrogate the motives of the Nigerian regulators and government in imposing the fine on Meta. It may be that the FCCPC and NDPC genuinely intend to fulfil their mandates to protect Nigerian consumers. Yet, it must also be noted that some government agencies are themselves guilty of violating Nigerian laws—routinely detaining critics in ways that contravene legal provisions.
Some commentators have cynically suggested that the fine may be financially motivated, or even a veiled attempt to punish Meta for enabling Nigerian citizens to use social media to criticise and campaign against government policies. If true, this would suggest the government is attempting to outsource its authoritarian tendencies to platforms, expecting them to police digital expression on its behalf.
None of these possibilities are palatable justifications for supporting the government. Yet, each points to broader realities that cannot be ignored. The first connects directly to the ongoing debate around digital sovereignty. Should platforms respect local laws, thereby acknowledging national sovereignty? Digital sovereignty has several dimensions, and in this case, data sovereignty is the most relevant.
Data protection laws, as an expression of national sovereignty, outline how a country chooses to regulate the collection, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, and deletion of its citizens’ data. While the borderless nature of digital space complicates enforcement, national jurisdictions still matter. This is why the EU developed the GDPR, why the USA has its own standards, and why African countries are beginning to adopt and align their own data protection frameworks.
In addition to data sovereignty, there are the related concepts of data residency and data localisation. Data residency implies that data about a country’s citizens should be stored within that country. Localisation goes further, requiring that foreign platforms keep locally-collected data within the jurisdiction of origin. Admittedly, Nigeria currently lacks the infrastructure to fully enforce these provisions, and global internet interconnectivity makes enforcement difficult—but these principles provide a starting point.
There are other, less-discussed aspects of digital sovereignty, such as infrastructure sovereignty and platform ownership. Nigeria, like many developing countries, is largely a consumer of hardware and digital infrastructure. In such a context, achieving infrastructure sovereignty becomes difficult. However, this must not be conflated with internet fragmentation—a phenomenon that creates isolated internet ecosystems defined by geography, resulting in the so-called “Splinternet.”
Despite these challenges, while we may applaud the government’s action, we must remain vigilant and recognise the fine line between asserting digital sovereignty and suppressing digital rights. The government’s credibility becomes suspect when it selectively enforces aspects of digital sovereignty while ignoring others. For instance, it is inconsistent to demand data sovereignty while doing little to advance data residency and localisation. Data centres in the United States, for example, consume nearly one-third of the country’s total energy. Nigeria lacks the energy infrastructure to support large-scale data localisation, and when data is hosted abroad, Nigerian legal protections become largely symbolic.
Uncritical support for the government could inadvertently empower it to define the terms of access to the digital space—potentially leading to repression of digital rights. As engaged and forward-looking citizens, our response should be nuanced—one that acknowledges the merits and risks of the government’s action and calls for a vision of digital sovereignty that is co-created by all stakeholders.
This aligns with the multi-stakeholder model that underpins global internet governance—a process reflected in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the work of bodies like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN agency for telecommunications standards.
In this spirit, Nigeria must look beyond its borders and champion a continental approach to digital sovereignty—just as Europe has done and Asia is beginning to do. There is wisdom in unity. Our strength lies not only in confronting tech giants but also in leveraging the combined weight of a harmonised African digital market during negotiations.
It is within this context that the joint action by the FCCPC and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), which supported the investigation behind the ruling, has shocked Meta into threatening to exit the country. In Europe, such a company would typically return to court to file an appeal. In Nigeria, however, Meta’s posture seems imperious—threatening to withdraw in a manner that has raised accusations of neo-colonial attitudes.
Home
