introduction
The final article in this paper focused on the following topics: Understanding digital identity in the Nigerian context. Universality of rights in the technological age. Digital rights as human rights. Data Sovereignty; Impact of NPDA 2023. The challenges of enforcement and the impact on sovereignty. This week’s feature similarly covers the (all inclusive) field: the moral foundation (human dignity) of identity and data rights. enjoy.
Enforceable reality and impact on sovereignty (continued)
This action undermines both the national policy directive and the financial sustainability of local data centers. More importantly, it publishes national data to external jurisdictions with geopolitical interests that are potentially inconsistent with different legal standards. The gap between infrastructure availability and institutional compliance identifies deeper and systematic challenges. Without coordinated enforcement, investment in local data infrastructure continues to be less leveraged and Nigeria’s vision of digital sovereignty will be continually violated. In these scenarios, enforcing the NDPA localization requirements is not merely a legal issue, but an infrastructure and financial challenge. Without nationally controlled data centers, robust encryption standards, and a trained pool of cybersecurity professionals, the NDPA’s intentions could remain ambitious rather than operational.
Moreover, the public sector’s own data practices often do not meet the standards set by law. Many government websites and portals do not have secure connections or clear privacy notices. In some cases, sensitive biometric data, such as national identity registrations and collected during elections, are stored using foreign cloud solutions. This contradiction between legal obligations and actual practices reveals deeper institutional issues. Data sovereignty cannot exist without a sustained investment in infrastructure, skills and public accountability. Successful NDPAs need to involve national digital policy agendas that promote domestic technical capabilities, public education and inter-agency coordination.
At the same time, the issue of data sovereignty is not only legal or technical, but also deeply political. In a global context characterized by the rise of digital nationalism, economic protectionism and cybergeopolitics, Nigeria’s ability to control data is increasingly linked to its ability to shape its future. Management of sovereign digital resources determines the government’s ability to develop its own country’s artificial intelligence solutions, improve governance through data-driven policies, and protect citizens from foreign exploitation and digital manipulation. Data sovereignty also has a major impact on the trust of the people. Citizens are more likely to engage in digital services when they think their data is protected by national law and accessed agencies. In this sense, sovereignty is not only about independence, but also about democratic legitimacy and transparency.
In short, NDPA 2023 is an important and necessary milestone in Nigeria’s digital evolution. It lays the legal foundation for advocating for state control over data, protecting citizen privacy and promoting digital trust. But its success depends on more than just the law. There is a need for cultural change in how both institutional adjustments, infrastructure investments, regulatory vigilance, and how the state and the private sector treat data as a national asset where inseparable governance from Nigeria’s sovereignty and democratic future is inseparable.
Human dignity: The moral foundation of identity and data rights
At the heart of digital identity systems and data governance frameworks is central ethical issues. How do these technologies reflect, strengthen or undermine the inherent dignity of the individuals they claim to serve? In a society dominated by liberal democratic values, dignity is fundamental rather than ambitious. Nigeria’s 1999 constitution expressly recognizes this in Section 34, which ensures that every individual has the right to human dignity, inhuman or degradation treatment, and respect for physical and mental integrity. However, in the digital realm, these rights are increasingly mediated through platforms, algorithms, and databases. If systems of identity management and data processing cannot support transparency, consent, fairness, and accountability, they risk dehumanizing citizens and violating constitutional protections, rather than simply creating inefficiency.
The core hypothesis is, therefore, that the design and deployment of digital identity systems must be judged not only by their technical capabilities, but also by their degree to which they actually preserve or erode human dignity. In Nigeria, this hypothesis is tested daily. Enforcement of the National Identification Number (NIN) registration process from 2020 to 2022 provides a clear case at that time. The NIN system was introduced to centralize and standardize digital identity verification across multiple government services. It aims to enhance service delivery, improve security and reduce fraud. However, the registration process revealed deep systemic inequality. All over the country, elderly people, disabled people, rural residents and economically marginalized groups were often given long queues under harsh weather conditions just to register. Many were driven away because there were no documents that the state initially did not effectively provide access, such as birth certificates and official addresses. These were not isolated incidents, but broad patterns that occurred during government-imposed deadlines under the threat of SIM cards deactivation. What was intended as a national construction exercise soon became a scenario of institutional exclusion.
Beyond logistical challenges, this scenario exposed deeper moral failures. Digital identity systems that ignore the user’s living reality, illiteracy, geographical remoteness, and limited documentation fail operationally as well as ethically. If an individual has no access to healthcare, education, or mobile SIMs, the harm is existential, not merely management, because of an identity system that rejects recognition. Experiences not recognized by the state in the digital domain replicate and reinforce social alienation in the physical world. In fact, technology that is not comprehensive by design risks perpetuating systemic injustice under the veneer of modernization.
What’s even more troublesome is the rise of algorithmic decision-making in critical domains without meaningful oversight. Nigerian financial technology platforms use automated systems to assess creditworthiness, assign risk scores and determine loan eligibility. In some cases, these systems reduce data from the user’s mobile phone, social media activity, and completely without informed consent. Similarly, predictive policing tools and surveillance technologies that are often deployed under the pretext of national security are opaque and rarely exposed to independent audits. The decisions made by these systems can result in life-changing results, rejection of credit, targeting by law enforcement, and exclusion from employment, but often lack mechanisms of appeal, relief or explanation. Influenced individuals were effectively stripped of their institutions in a process that could not be relied on and directly affect their lives.
The Nigerian Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023 is making a commendable attempt to address some of these challenges. Section 35 of the Act grants an individual the right to oppose decisions made only through automated processing, particularly if such decisions have legal or equally significant effects. This is a step towards reviving agents at a level that is an increasingly automated world. However, this act stops requiring the explanability of the algorithm. This is an important safeguard in the digital age where decisions made by machines are often inexplicable. Without the essential transparency in the way algorithms are developed, trained and deployed, accountability remains elusive and human dignity remains vulnerable.
To truly maintain the dignity of the digital age, Nigerian governance model must move beyond the ban on harm and towards the empowerment of digital agents. This means creating a system that actively responds to the diverse realities of Nigerian citizens through gender, class, ethnicity, geography and capabilities, not merely avoiding discrimination, but also actively responds. For example, your identity system must include offline validation options for rural residents without internet access, and must support alternative forms of documentation and be available in a local language. Data governance policies must ensure that consent is not just a checkbox, but an understandable and meaningful process, especially for groups with limited digital literacy.
Furthermore, digital inclusion must be approached not only from a technology perspective, but as a human rights obligation. Institutions must incorporate ethical standards at every stage of system design, implementation and evaluation. This includes establishing an independent watchdog with the authority to conduct regular impact assessments focused on community engagement, marginalized groups, and investigating harm and mandating reform before deploying systems that affect them. An NDPC created under the NDPA may play this role if it has the appropriate resources, technical capabilities, and legal independence.
Ultimately, digital dignity is inseparable from democratic governance. In a society where data is increasingly shaping decisions about people who have access to public services, employment, and even basic perceptions, data rights must be treated as an extension of civil rights. The question is not whether Nigeria will be digitalised, but whether it will be done in ways that will enhance justice, participation and human prosperity. When human dignity is not protected by the design and operation of digital systems, digitization becomes another mechanism of exclusion and equipment, how well-funded or technologically advanced risks. (to be continued).
This week’s thoughts
“The end of the law is not to abolish or suppress it, but to maintain and expand freedom. If there is no law, there is no freedom in all states where there is no freedom, and there is no freedom” (John Locke)
