By Olumide Babalola
Introduction
Under Nigeria’s data protection framework, certain categories of business entities are required to conduct and file annual data protection compliance audits (now formally referred to as Compliance Audit Returns (CAR) under sections 6(d) and 61(g) of the NDPA and Article 10 of the GAID). When the system was first introduced in 2019, the regulator issued confirmation emails as evidence of filing. However, upon transitioning to the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), the practice shifted to issuing NDPR Trust Mark Certificates as proof of compliance with audit-filing obligations.
Although this innovation initially appeared professional and standardized, it quickly created misconceptions. Many organizations and even some privacy professionals, interpreted the Trust Mark as confirmation of substantive compliance, rather than a simple acknowledgment of audit filing. The result is widespread misrepresentation, with businesses brandishing the Trust Mark as proof of full compliance while neglecting their broader obligations under the law. This article examines the meaning of trust marks, why the NDPR Trust Mark (as currently issued) is misleading, and why reforms are necessary to avoid further confusion and counterproductive outcomes.
Understanding Trust Marks in Privacy and Data Protection Parlance
Globally, trust marks (also called privacy seals, certification marks, or trust seals) are visual indicators (logos, badges, or images) that signify compliance with predefined data protection or privacy standards. Typically, they are awarded by independent third parties and serve as signals of credibility to consumers, regulators, and stakeholders.
Needless to say, that the Nigerian idea of trust mark (although tweaked) was inspired by the EU GDPR’s creation of certification mechanism in Europe even though they continue to struggle with their problems of heterogeneity of the trust mark regime. In the EU, for example, the GDPR introduced certification mechanisms that serve as trust marks. These are often tied to regulated services such as electronic signatures, timestamps, and other qualified trust services, thereby enhancing confidence in digital transactions.
At their core, trust marks communicate that an organization has been evaluated and approved by a neutral third party against specific privacy or security criteria.
Why the NDPR Trust Mark is Misleading
Outdated Legal Reference: As of August 23, 2025, the Trust Mark issued by the NDPC still carries the label NDPR. Whereas the principal legislation since 2023 is the NDPA, not the NDPR. Continuing to issue certificates under the old regulatory regime only fuels legal and operational confusion especially in the light of conversations around the current status of the NDPR as extant or otherwise.
False Impression of Evaluation: Unlike global trust marks, the NDPR Trust Mark does not represent a thorough evaluation against defined privacy benchmarks. Instead, it merely confirms that an organization has filed its annual audit report. The absence of evaluation metrics, scoring frameworks, or substantive approval processes means that the Trust Mark conveys an inflated sense of compliance.
Conflicts in the Nigerian Audit Process: In Nigeria, audits are conducted by Data Protection Compliance Organisations (DPCOs), which are engaged and paid by the very companies they audit. This raises a fundamental conflict of interest: “he who pays the piper dictates the tune.” Furthermore, under Article 10 of the GAID, the obligation to conduct audits lies primarily with controllers and processors themselves. The law merely requires filing through a DPCO. Thus, the DPCO is not an independent evaluator but rather a service provider executing instructions. Without standardized scoring or evaluation metrics, the process does not amount to a true third-party certification.
Misconstrued Approval by NDPC: The most damaging misconception is the idea that the Trust Mark signifies NDPC’s approval of total compliance. In reality, audit reports are meant to highlight gaps, not certify perfection. The NDPC’s acceptance of audit filings cannot and should not be equated with substantive compliance. For instance, a company may dutifully file its audit while still failing to meet obligations around transparency, data subject rights, security safeguards, or purpose limitation. The Trust Mark, however, enables them to market themselves as “compliant,” which misleads the public and stakeholders alike.
Counterproductive Effects of the Trust Mark
The original purpose of audits was to help organizations identify and fix weaknesses in their privacy practices. Unfortunately, the Trust Mark has turned this process into a box-ticking exercise. This problem is especially acute among digital lenders and fintech companies, which often require the Trust Mark to secure licenses. Once obtained, many companies ignore the gaps identified in their audits, preferring instead to rely on the certificate as proof of compliance year after year.
The result is an illusion of compliance where organizations technically comply with the audit-filing requirement while ignoring broader obligations. Meanwhile, the NDPC’s true objective (i.e safeguarding data subjects’ rights) is undermined. In short, while the issuance of Trust Marks may inflate statistics on “compliance,” it does not reflect the reality of privacy protections in practice.
Recommendations for Reform
Replace the initial Trust Marks with Acknowledgment Notices: Instead of issuing Trust Marks upon audit filing, the NDPC should issue simple acknowledgment documents. These should confirm only that an audit has been filed, without implying broader compliance.
Introduce Remediation Timelines: Since audits reveal compliance gaps, the NDPC should require controllers to submit remediation plans with clear timelines for addressing deficiencies.
Adopt a Scoring and Evaluation Framework: True trust marks should only be awarded after substantive evaluation. The NDPC should create scoring metrics to assess compliance maturity, allowing organizations to be benchmarked and rated transparently.
Clarify the Scope of the Trust Mark: The NDPC should consistently emphasize that audit filing does not equate to substantive compliance. Public communication must reinforce this distinction.
Issue Trust Marks Post-Verification: Only after an organization has demonstrably closed the gaps identified in its audit should it be eligible for a genuine trust mark.
Conclusion
The NDPR Trust Mark, in its current form, is misleading, counterproductive, and ripe for reform. While intended as a symbol of compliance, it has instead become a shield for minimal effort and a source of confusion for stakeholders. For Nigeria’s data protection ecosystem to mature, the NDPC must realign the Trust Mark with its true purpose: a rigorous, independent certification of substantive compliance. Anything less risks perpetuating a culture of checkbox compliance while leaving the fundamental rights of data subjects unprotected.