In a circular issued to banks and other financial institutions on Thursday, March 12, 2026, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) directed that effective from May 1, 2026, amendments to phone numbers linked to BVN (Bank Verification Number) shall be allowed only once. There were no extenuating conditions or exemptions attached to that directive.
The new policy directive does not sync and is incongruous with the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) updated version of Telecom Identity Risk Management Policy (TIRMP), which allows mobile operators to reassign inactive phone lines after a 12-month period of non-use.
Under the NCC guidelines, a mobile number is considered inactive if it does not engage in any revenue-generating activity—including calls, SMS, charged USSD sessions, or data usage—for a continuous period of 180 days. If this inactivity persists for another 180 days, bringing the total to 360 days, the number becomes eligible for churning and may be reassigned by the operator.
This is notwithstanding the fact that the Commission acknowledges the complications that may arise from line recycling, and that the reassignment of previously used numbers may lead to security and data integrity issues, especially when old owners still have the number linked to various services.
To the foregoing, we can now add a new absolutist complication introduced by the new CBN policy, which leaves citizens whose phone numbers have been deactivated and unilaterally reassigned to someone else, without a valid phone link to their BVN.
In other words, such account holders will fall short of meeting the CBN’s Know Your Customers (KYC) directive to financial institutions. The clear and unintended consequence is that such citizens’ BVN will be deemed incomplete, and they run the risk of being debanked, since mitigating conditions are not applicable.
For illustrative purposes, let’s take the case of a widow with five under-aged children, who subsequently suffers a debilitating stroke and remains hospitalized in intensive care for 12 months, during which her phone remains inactive. Pursuant to the NCC directive, her phone is deactivated and reassigned to another user by the operator, and her bank locks her out because she had previously changed her phone number and the CBN’s new directive absolutely prohibits a second amendment.
Let’s consider another case of a single mother who relocates to Canada and it took her 13 months to fully settle down with her children before returning for a visit to Nigeria. By the time she hits Lagos International Airport, Ikeja, her phone has been deactivated and reassigned to another user. Even though she had some credit minutes left in her phone when she left for Canada, she dejectedly finds that she cannot make use of her phone to contact the family member waiting to pick her up from the airport, and that her bank account had also been deactivated because the phone link to her BVN is no longer valid.
The alarming and frightening aspect is that the CBN’s draconian directive leaves citizens with no conceivable curative remedy. The paramount policy thrust of any responsive and democratic government, is the welfare and security of her citizens. Wreaking havoc on the lives of citizens with policies that cause social and economic upheavals under the guise of combating scam and fraud does not pass any responsible government muster.
However, the more damning directive is the NCC guidelines, which allows for unilateral deactivation and reassignment of a citizen’s phone number by the operator, if the phone is inactive for 12 months. The NCC maintains that telecommunication service providers have the power to reassign numbers that have been inactive without consulting the user as long as they are not used within 12 months, and claims that this authority is embedded in Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003 (NCA 2003). But Section 70 is simply a general policymaking clause and contains no specific language authorizing the unilateral deactivation and reassignment by an operator.
In 2019, the unilateral reassignment of a SIM Card previously belonging to ex-President Buhari’s daughter led to the unlawful detention of an innocent citizen for fraud and subsequently an award of N10 million damages against the DSS for infringement and violation of his fundamental human rights by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba.
By its very characteristics and usage, registered mobile phone numbers constitute personal data protected under the constitution, because mobile numbers are digital identifiers that link information to an individual’s private affairs. Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution as Amended provides that “The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.” See Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative (DRLI) & Ors v National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) CA/IB/291/2020.
In most legal jurisdictions, personal information is defined to include unique identifiers, which covers telephone numbers.
Interestingly, an analogous Kenyan communications policy directive, allowing reassignment of mobile phone numbers was recently struck down by a Kenyan High Court.
In a recent ruling by a Kenyan High Court, made on March 19, 2026 and published by Kenyans.co.ke, following a petition filed in June 2024, that sought to stop telecommunication companies from recycling mobile numbers, Justice Lawrence Mugambi affirmed that mobile numbers are digital identifiers that link information to an individual’s private affairs.
Mugambi quoted Articles 31 (c) and (d) of the Kenyan Constitution, which safeguard the right not to have private information exposed unnecessarily. The court noted that mobile numbers often carry data that can reveal an individual’s financial, social, and personal activity, making their protection critical in the digital age.
The petitioner had argued that such numbers formed part of an individual’s digital identity and were linked to sensitive personal information, and that reassigning the phone numbers could expose users’ personal information to third parties without their explicit consent.
The petitioner requested a declaration confirming that a personal digital identity exists and that a registered phone number is an integral part of that identity, similar to a physical national ID, passport, or driver’s licence.
The case further highlighted concerns affecting incarcerated individuals, noting that prisoners often lose access to their registered numbers due to extended periods of non-use, potentially exposing their personal data when the numbers are reassigned.
In the ruling, the judge emphasized that reassignment of mobile numbers should only occur under strict conditions designed to protect the privacy of the previous owner.
The court ruled that the previous owner’s informed and verifiable consent must be obtained before any reassignment.
Similarly, reassignment can happen only after a reasonable period following a public notice, which must be preceded by a documented verification process confirming that the original owner cannot be reached or has unequivocally relinquished rights to the number.
In the same vein, technical safeguards must be implemented to prevent unauthorized exposure or transfer of personal data linked to the previous owner when the number is reassigned or recycled. (culled from Kenyans.co.ke of March 19, 2026).
It is therefore clear that in this digital technology age in Nigeria, phone numbers are part of an individual’s digital identity, protected by the constitution that cannot be unilaterally reassigned without due process and fair hearing. Consequently, all policies made under and pursuant to the Nigerian Communications Act 2003 (NCA 2003), especially Section 70, should be revised and amended to cure any inconsistency with the constitution.
Lastly, the CBN should revise its recent phone to BVN link policy to include extenuating circumstances that can provide an exception to the rule, allowing for flexibility in the policy implementation. This approach recognizes that certain situations may not be within the control of the individual.
In legal and formal settings, the phrase “absent extenuating circumstances” is often used as a qualifier for a standard rule or requirement. It signifies that a specific outcome, such as a penalty or denial, will occur unless the claimant can successfully demonstrate a justifiable reason for deviation. This establishes a strict expectation but provides an explicit escape clause for situations truly outside an individual’s control.
In the business world, the concept is formalized through “force majeure” clauses in contracts. These clauses specify events like war, pandemics, or natural disasters that suspend or terminate a party’s contractual obligations without liability. Governmental filings, such as those related to immigration or tax deadlines, also provide mechanisms for extensions based on extenuating circumstances like military service.
In litigation, extenuating circumstances, often called mitigating factors, can influence criminal sentencing or decrease the damages awarded in civil personal injury cases.
Chuma Uwechia is admitted to practice in both the United States Supreme Court and the Nigerian Supreme Court.
