Francis Kwarteng Arthur, a private legal practitioner, has sued the National Communications Authority (NCA), Ghana Telecommunication Company Limited – operators of Vodafone Ghana, Scancom PLC – operators of MTN Ghana, Airtel Ghana Limited, and the Attorney General over SIM re-registration in the Accra High Court.
He claims that the NCA will violate his rights to administrative justice, property, speech, information, and privacy by requiring telcos to obtain, store, or use his personal information, such as his fingerprint, palmprint, iris or facial pattern record, or other biometric data or particulars.
As a result, he is asking the High Court to issue an order rescinding the NCA’s directive, instruction, or requirement that mobile network operators obtain such personal information. He also wants the NCA and telecommunications companies to be barred from authorizing, directing, instructing, or requiring the collection, storage, and use of this personal information.
The sim re-registration process began on October 1 and will end on March 31, 2022.
According to the communications ministry, it is aimed at dealing with fraudsters as well as allowing security agencies to track down individuals who engage in criminal activities.
SIM card users must use the National Identification card, also known as the Ghana card, to register their SIM cards.
In his writ, Mr. Arthur describes his own experience with the process, stating, “That I complied with the 1st Respondent’s directive by completing the Stage One procedures for all the SIM card numbers that I mentioned in Paragraph 4 of this Affidavit.”
That on October 27, 2021, after completing the Stage One registration procedure for the 3rd Respondent, I went to the 3rd Respondent’s office or customer care center on Graphic Road in Accra at around 4 p.m. to be administered to the Stage Two of the SIM card number registration procedure.
That at the 3rd Respondent’s customer service center, the 3rd Respondent’s employees, agents, or officials used a digital camera to take a headshot photograph of me and then demanded that I submit my two palms for another close-up digital photograph of them.
Because I was alarmed by these very intrusive requests, I refused the directives and instead demanded an explanation, to which two of the 3rd Respondent’s workmen, agents, or officers simply stated that it was a requirement without which I could not complete my SIM card number registration with the 3rd Respondent.
That on October 28, 2021, around 2 p.m., I sent a formal email communication to the 3rd Respondent demanding answers to the following questions (to which I have yet to receive an answer):
What is the purpose or reason for photographing a subscriber who wishes to register his or her SIM card?
What is the purpose of photographing the palm of a subscriber who wishes to re-register his or her SIM card?
Where will the photos be delivered and stored? And what authority do you have to take such photographs and personal sensitive information from over ten million subscribers?
A copy of the email communication I sent to the third respondent is attached and labeled Exhibit FKA 3.
That, pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s directive, which is mentioned in paragraphs 11 and 12 of this Affidavit, all mobile network operators (including the 2nd Respondent and the 4th Respondent) are to, and will, follow the same or similar procedures that the 3rd Respondent had begun to take me through – procure, store, or use Subscribers’ personal information (including their fingerprint, palmprint, iris or facial pattern record, or other biometric data.