Who Will Bell the Cat? Developing an Inclusive Information Privacy Culture for the Judiciary

Description

ABSTRACT

Who Will Bell the Cat? Developing an Inclusive Information Privacy Culture for the Judiciary

Olumide Babalola*

In November 2022, the Nigerian judiciary woke up to one of her obligations as a data controller when the National Judicial Council (NJC) reviewed its Judicial Information Technology Policy (JITP) to accommodate information privacy by providing guidance to Judiciary staff, including Judges, on confidentiality, integrity and availability of (personal) data etc. The timely review underscores the effect of Nigeria’s gradual awareness of issues bordering on information privacy, especially within the judiciary. This paper provides a descriptive and analytical commentary on issues implicating information privacy, i.e. data protection, especially concerning court proceedings in Nigeria. While emphasising some limitations of the provision on the right to privacy under the Nigerian Constitution, the paper argues that information privacy is nevertheless identifiable from the expansive yet unexplored provision of section 37 of the Constitution.

Keywords: Court Proceedings, Data Protection, Information Privacy, Nigerian Constitution, Section 37

INTRODUCTION
The right to privacy is a generally broad specie of fundamental right that guarantees non interference with personal autonomy, among other interests. Researchers have, however, argued and, in some jurisdictions, advocated that the right to privacy should accommodate non-personaland inanimate interests.₁ For example, physical privacy protects much more than personal rights; it sometimes transcends into the realm of property rights when privacy is approached from the perspective of control.₂ On another note, researchers have also advocated for privacy protection in favour of corporations instead of their fixation on natural beings.₃ For the purpose of this paper, the right to privacy is divided into two broad categories: physical privacy₄ and information(al) privacy. Even though physical and information privacy often overlaps, this paper focuses on the latter in the context of judicial proceedings.₅

*Law Lecturer, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

1. For varying definitions of privacy, see Olumide Babalola, Privacy and Data Protection Law in Nigeria (Noetico Repertum 2021) 9.
2. Adam Moore, ‘Privacy: its Meaning and Value’ (2003) 40 (3) American Philosophical Quarterly, 215-227.
3. See Elizabeth Pollman, ‘A Corporate Right to Privacy, (2014) 99 (1) Minnesota Law Review, 27-88, Anita Allen, ‘Rethinking the Rules Against Corporate Privacy Rights: Some Conceptual Quandaries for Common Law’ (1987) 20(607) The John Marshall Law Review 607-639.
4. Physical privacy deals with access to a person, especially to the body rather than his information, see H Leino Kilpi, ‘Privacy: A Review of Literature’ (2001) 38 International Journal of Nursing Studies, 663-671. The ramifications of physical privacy could however extend to intrusion of personal space, privacy of home bodily intrusion, unauthorized recordings as photographs etc, See NA Moreham, ‘Beyond Information: Physical Privacy in English Law’ (2014) 73(2) The Cambridge Law Journal 350-377.
5. ‘Proceedings’ in the context of this paper refers to both civil and criminal proceedings.

THE GRAVITAS REVIEW OF BUSINESS & PROPERTY LAW Vol.14 No.1