This is not about whether policies exist or whether regulators can be satisfied during an inspection cycle. Most tier one institutions can point to frameworks, controls, and a respectable level of alignment with the NDPR. On paper, the story holds together. In practice, the experience for customers is far less convincing, and that gap is where the real risk sits.
Privacy, in many Nigerian banks, is still treated as a downstream function. It is something to be validated once products are already built, campaigns already designed, and data already circulating internally in ways that are difficult to fully map. That operating model may have been tolerable five years ago. It is no longer defensible.
The commercial reality is shifting. Nigerian customers are not naïve about data anymore. They may not quote legislation, but they recognise when their information is being overused, poorly explained, or insufficiently protected. They notice when alerts arrive late, when access feels inconsistent, and when communication lacks clarity. Each of those moments lands as a question of competence, not just technology.
For banks, that translates directly into risk. Not abstract regulatory risk, but erosion of customer confidence, reduced product uptake, and increased sensitivity to any incident, however minor. In a market where switching costs are falling, trust is becoming more fluid than many executives are prepared to admit.
There is also a strategic dimension that remains underexploited. Nigerian banks are custodians of extraordinarily rich datasets, yet many are unable to leverage that data with the level of precision the market now demands. The constraint is not purely technical. It is governance. Where data lineage is unclear, where access controls are inconsistently enforced, and where purpose limitation is loosely interpreted, the organisation becomes hesitant to fully activate its own data assets.
In other words, weak privacy discipline does not just create downside risk. It suppresses upside value.
A more mature approach starts by repositioning privacy as a core component of business architecture. That means elevating accountability to a level where it can influence product design, vendor strategy, and data partnerships in real time. It requires moving beyond static documentation towards operational controls that can be evidenced, tested, and explained without friction.
Data minimisation is an obvious example, but it is rarely executed with intent. Many institutions still default to collecting broadly on the assumption that more data will eventually translate into more insight. The opposite is often true. Excess data introduces noise, increases exposure, and complicates governance. Precision, not volume, is where competitive advantage now sits.
Transparency is another area that demands recalibration. Privacy notices that satisfy legal review but fail customer comprehension are no longer sufficient. Clarity, in this context, is not a branding exercise. It is a control. When customers understand how their data is used, they are more likely to engage, to consent meaningfully, and to remain within the ecosystem.
Then there is the question of internal culture, which is frequently underestimated. Controls can be well designed and still undermined by informal practices, workarounds, or misplaced incentives. Insider risk in Nigerian banking is not typically a failure of technology. It is a failure of consistent enforcement and tone from the top.
None of this suggests that Nigerian banks are uniquely behind. The same patterns can be observed across multiple markets. What is different is the pace at which expectations are evolving locally, driven by fintech competition, regulatory attention, and a more discerning customer base.
This creates a narrow window for incumbents to reset their position.
The institutions that treat privacy as an operational discipline, rather than a compliance obligation, will find themselves in a materially stronger position to scale digital products, to form credible partnerships, and to retain customer confidence under pressure. Those that do not will continue to operate with hidden fragilities that only become visible at the worst possible moments.
For boards and executive teams, the question is no longer whether privacy matters. It is whether the current approach is robust enough to support the next phase of growth.
Right now, in many cases, it is not.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
Michael Irene, CIPM, CIPP(E) certification, is a data and information governance practitioner based in London, United Kingdom. He is also a Fellow of Higher Education Academy, UK, and can be reached via moshoke@yahoo.com; twitter: @moshoke
Electronic transmission: Electoral umpires should learn from Nigerian banks