From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by Meta Platforms, Incorporated, challenging the $32.8 million sanctions imposed on it.
The NDPC had, on February 18, imposed both a remedial fee of $32.8 million and eight corrective orders against Meta Inc., alleged to have violated the fundamental privacy rights of its Nigerian users with respect to behavioural advertising on Facebook and Instagram.
Dissatisfied, the American multinational technology company, Meta Platforms Inc., in a motion ex-parte dated and filed on February 26, sued the regulatory agency as the sole respondent. In the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025 and moved by Fred Onuofia, SAN, on March 4, the Abuja division of the court granted one of the two orders sought by 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 all other investigations, proceedings, and actions taken by the respondent against the applicant leading to the ‘Final Orders.’”
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1718806029429-0’); });
The court, however, refused to grant the applicant’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 for an accelerated hearing of the suit.
The firm, in its originating summons filed by lead counsel, Prof. Gbolahan Elias, SAN, wants the court to determine whether NDPC’s investigative process and ensuing compliance and enforcement orders (the Final Orders) issued on February 18 were invalid, null, and void. Meta, in its application dated and filed 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 Nigeria Data Protection (NDP) Act prior to issuing the “Final Orders.” Meta argued that such action violated its due process rights, including its right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among other reliefs.
However, NDPC, in a preliminary objection to Meta’s suit, told the court that the suit is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. The regulatory agency, in its application dated April 10 and filed 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 provision of Order 34 Rule 6(1) of the Federal High Court (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. “The suit is liable to be struck out/dismissed, in limine,” Adedipe argued.
The NDPC, in the affidavit attached to the preliminary objection, stated that by an ex-parte motion, Meta Inc. filed the case. The commission said that the company had filed the suit seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the respondent taken on February 18. 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 March 19, 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 (NDPC) does not intend to waive its right to object, in this regard.” “The defendant/applicant does not intend to waive its rights in challenging these fundamental errors, which are fatal to this proceeding and jurisdiction of the court.”
The commission said it would be in the interest of justice for its objection to be sustained.
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).
The PDPAI had alleged that the company breached the data protection rights of users of Facebook and Instagram. Olatubosun 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 was provided in support of the petition, revealing Meta’s privacy policy showing that it conducted behavioural advertising without obtaining consent from the data subjects.
Olatubosun further stated that during the investigation, NDPC drew the company’s attention to disturbing violations, including non-consensual data processing activities, such as the disclosure of sensitive personal data of minors relating to their sex lives, drug use, and erotic dancing; manipulated personal data of journalists in gambling advertisements; and explicit videos, including one of a woman delivering a child with her genitals in full display. He said Meta was found in breach of the NDP Act, and its promotion of debasing images offended principles of fairness, lawfulness, transparency, accountability, and duty of care.[](https://worldstagenews.com/nigeria-ndpc-asks-court-to-dismiss-metas-suit-challenging-32-8m-fine/)
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 a complaint filed by a “data subject” (as defined under Section 65 of the NDP Act), 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.”
However, Meta, in a motion on notice filed on April 23, sought to amend its statement attached to the ex-parte application, having seen through the notice of preliminary objection filed by Adeola Adedipe, SAN, on behalf of the commission. Onuofia, SAN, while adopting all their processes, said the motion sought an order granting leave to the company to amend its statement pursuant to Order 34, Rule 3(2)(a) of the FHC rules. He said it also sought an order deeming the amended statement, which had already been filed and served on NDPC, as having been properly filed and served.
Giving grounds why his application should be granted, Onuofia said on March 4, the court heard and granted their motion ex-parte for leave. He said, thereafter, Meta filed its originating summons on March 19. The lawyer, however, told the judge that the firm sought to amend the wording of the reliefs and grounds set out in the statement to replicate the wording used in the originating summons. He said the decision was to ensure efficiency and the full and fair hearing of the issues arising in the originating summons.
Onuofia said the requested amendment would not cause any injustice to NDPC. But Adedipe vehemently opposed Onuofia’s prayer seeking an amendment, urging the court to dismiss the application. The senior counsel told the court that a counter affidavit was filed on May 2 in opposition to the motion. He argued that the application was presumptuous and misleading. He submitted that an amendment of a process is not as of right, but entirely at the discretion of the court, where such is practicable and lawful to do so. Adedipe argued that the reliefs sought in a statement attached to a judicial review procedure cannot be amended, except the grounds for which the reliefs are premised. He said the reliefs contained in the statement must be reproduced in the originating process filed, after leave had been granted for judicial review. According to him, the applicant seeks to amend the reliefs set out in the unattached predicate “statement.” “It projects a lot of incongruity,” he said, arguing that there was no provision under the Rules to amend reliefs in the statement; only grounds of the reliefs can be amended.
Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter until October 3 for a consolidated ruling on the preliminary objection and motion to amend.
The post NDPC asks court to dismiss suit by Meta Platforms challenging $32.8m fine appeared first on The Sun Nigeria.
