This story was made possible with support from the Pulitzer Center and forms part of the Africa leg of Big Tech’s Invisible Hand, a cross-border collaborative investigation led by Brazilian news organisation Agência Pública and the Centro Latinoamericano de Investigación Periodística (CLIP).
Meta fought multimillion-dollar penalties from Nigerian regulators while building new relationships with the state. An investigation by The Continent found at least 17 engagements between Big Tech companies and Nigerian government institutions since 2024, many with little public information about the terms behind them.
In February 2025, representatives of three of the world’s most powerful technology companies sat down with Nigeria’s Data Protection Commission.
Meta, Microsoft and Google had come to discuss collaboration. Dr. Vincent Olatunji, the head of the data protection commission was delighted “at the prospect of collaborating with global tech giants. He stressed the importance of synergy between the public sector, private sector, civil society groups, and academia.”
Meta, at the time, was fighting Nigerian regulators over how it handled the personal information of millions of people. In July 2024, another regulator, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), had fined Meta and WhatsApp $220 million after a 38-month investigation. The regulator found, among other things, that Nigerians had been given too little control over how their information was collected, shared, and used. Rather than paying, Meta appealed the decision and lost, and subsequently threatened to suspend its services. Despite a 60-day payment deadline that expired in June 2025, the company continues to operate normally while the legal standoff remains unresolved. And within days of the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC)’s collaboration discussions being publicly reported, that regulator imposed a separate $32.8 million penalty on Meta.
However, over the months that followed, the $32.8 million case was settled. According to a Premium Times investigation, the settlement set aside the commission’s fine and eight corrective orders against Meta, releasing the company from liabilities arising from the case. The publication reported that several specific regulatory requirements were replaced by broader commitments from Meta to comply with Nigeria’s data-protection law and strengthen its data-protection measures.
Then the same commission announced that, “in collaboration with Meta Inc.,” it had translated the Nigeria Data Protection Act into local languages, and in May 2026, another arm of government launched GovGuide Nigeria, an AI service built with Meta’s technology to help Nigerians navigate public services.
The Continent asked Meta and Nigerian government agencies when discussions over GovGuide began because in Nigeria, companies are not required to enter meetings such as these into any registers. There is no routine public record showing which companies are approaching government officials, what they want from them, or what is discussed behind closed doors.
So The Continent began building one.
Our investigation traced at least 17 publicly documented engagements between major technology companies and the Nigerian state since 2024. They include meetings with the president and regulators, government AI projects, training programmes, funding and policy discussions.
Many are ordinary interactions between government and companies operating in one of Africa’s largest digital markets. But others bring technology companies into closer contact with the institutions responsible for deciding how they should operate in Nigeria.
The Meta case shows the responsibility of the regulators.
The core of various Nigerian regulators’ concerns was that the citizens using WhatsApp were not being given enough choice over what happened to their data. Information collected about people can be used to build profiles of their interests and behaviour and, among other things, decide which advertising they are shown. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission also found that Meta shared and transferred Nigerians’ personal information without proper permission and gave Nigerian users fewer protections over their data than users in some other countries.
GovGuide raises a related set of questions. The AI-powered platform helps Nigerians find and understand government information through text, voice and WhatsApp in English, Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo. Its privacy notice says it may collect names, contact details, addresses, government-issued identifiers, geolocation, device and IP information, as well as users’ chatbot prompts, documents, images, audio and conversation logs. That information may be used to personalise services, conduct analytics and research, and improve the chatbot and machine-learning models.
Privacy lawyer Olumide Babalola, who served as counsel in Odunola Kehinde v. Vesti, a case involving alleged unauthorised data disclosures under the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, notes how odd the situation is. He points out that the high-profile data protection commission case against Meta was fundamentally about the company’s handling of Nigerians’ data.
“The Nigerian data protection framework generally forbids the processing of personal data except where there exists a lawful basis,” explains Babalola. “In the absence of any document establishing otherwise, Meta does not have any lawful basis to use citizens’ data in an undisclosed manner. For GovGuide, the context is entirely different. Citizens are interacting with what they believe is a government service, not a public social media platform. The presumption should be that any data processing is strictly for the purpose of providing that government service, unless explicit, informed consent is obtained for any other use.”
The commission was also asked whether its proposed collaboration with Meta, discussed at a February 2025 meeting, proceeded while the privacy case against the company remained active and through its eventual settlement. Neither the agencies involved nor Meta answered questions about GovGuide or the nature and timing of their wider collaboration. The available evidence shows that regulatory action and discussions about collaboration occurred during the same period, but does not establish that the two were connected.
However, this is not an isolated partnership.
Our search of public records identified at least 17 Big Tech engagements with the Nigerian state over the past three years, from funding and training to meetings with senior officials, technology projects and dealings with regulators.
The true extent of government and regulators’ engagements with Big Tech companies is difficult to establish. Nigeria has no register showing who meets government officials, what is discussed, or what they are seeking to influence. Many of the agreements behind the partnerships are also not public, leaving only a partial picture of how deeply Big Tech has become embedded in Nigeria’s digital ambitions.
Ali Sabo, head of Digital Rights at the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD), describes it as “soft influence”.
“While their projects can aid national development, they also quietly shape how policymakers view technology and governance.”
If left unchecked, Sabo warns that outside tech platforms threaten government independence, lead to over-reliance on specific vendors, and could restrict future policy choices. “Partnerships need to be out in the open, protected by clear safeguards, and open to input from universities, civil society organisations, and local tech builders.”
Back in October 2024, the Nigerian government partnered with Data Science Nigeria to announce a 2.8 billion Naira Google.org grant for national AI talent programmes tied to the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation, and Digital Economy. Programmes rolled out included the DeepTech Ready Track for 20,000 advanced learners, the Experience AI teacher program meant to reach 25,000 teachers and 125,000 students, and a Government AI Campus for civil servants. These programs onboard thousands of Nigerians into specific company tools, certification tracks, and software ecosystems from a young age. According to analysts, these companies are essentially securing lifelong customers for their ecosystems.
When The Continent asked a Google Spokesperson about data protection during these initiatives, they said the company’s products use “industry-leading technology” to protect users’ information and pointed to privacy controls, its registration with the NDPC, and the appointment of a data protection officer. But their response did not state where the data generated through the public-sector programmes is stored, how long it is retained, or whether it can be used to improve commercial AI products.
In 2025, Microsoft partnered with the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation, and Digital Economy (FMCIDE), Data Science Nigeria, and Lagos Business School. They launched the AI National Skills Initiative (AINSI) to train 35,000 people in artificial intelligence. Participants received certificates linked to the national 3 Million Technical Talent (3MTT) portal. Another partnership with Junior Achievement Nigeria (JA Nigeria) introduced thousands of young students to generative AI basics.
Grace, a student at the Federal University of Technology Akure, participated in the Microsoft/JA Nigeria Career Essentials AI programme and received free access to Microsoft Copilot and LinkedIn Premium. She and other participants later extended the programme to students on another campus. But her experience also shows how the company introduces young people to the company’s wider technology ecosystem beyond just AI.
When asked about the data privacy and access, Microsoft provided figures for registrations, learning activity, and certification. It did not provide the commercial agreements, contract values, procurement information, or licensing arrangements requested. On the role of its own products in the training, Microsoft said: “specific training pathways may include Microsoft technologies, where relevant to the curriculum.”
Tech analyst Eze Hanson considers these programs a mix of smart philanthropy and workforce development, while cautioning against hidden risks. “Embedding a proprietary suite of developer networks, certification paths, and job-search platforms into a state-backed mass training can be perceived as seeding a captive user base and standardising national dependency on a technology infrastructure,” Hanson explains.
That concern, however, sits beside Nigeria’s own ambitions for greater digital independence. Nigeria is trying to take greater control of its data and digital infrastructure. But it is doing so while becoming increasingly reliant on the global companies providing the money, training, and technology behind that transformation. Many of the agreements defining those relationships remain outside public view.
“When government partners with multinational companies to handle public services and data, the public deserves to know the terms of the deal,” said civil society transparency advocate Adekunle Omolabi.
For now, the announcements are public. Much of what has been agreed behind them is not.
