As the new nationwide SIM Registration exercise beckons, deeper and more troubling questions have surfaced, which could affect the patronage of the new exercise if not convincingly answered.
Ghana has previously undertaken SIM registration exercises. However, they appear incomplete and faulty, hence the attempt by the new government to conduct a new comprehensive registration.
But in an era where data is gold and can also be a security threat when it lands in the wrong hands, Policy think tank IMANI Centre for Policy and Education is asking critical questions that many Ghanaians have quietly wondered about for years.
What happened to the biometric data collected during the last registration, and who is responsible for it today?
IMANI justifies that during the previous SIM registration, fingerprints and facial images were captured with the expectation that these records would be verified against the National Identification Authority (NIA) database.
However, the think tank reveals that this verification process “was never fully carried out,” leaving a trove of sensitive biometric data sitting somewhere. It adds that it is unclear who is controlling the data, under what protection, and what the accountability measures.
As experts confirm, biometric information is not like ordinary data. If leaked or misused, you cannot change your fingerprints. You cannot change your face. And once such data slips into the wrong hands, the damage is irreversible.
Amid these previous data concerns, IMANI argues that before citizens are asked to register again, the state must come clean about these critical questions.
“Before a new registration mandate proceeds, Government must resolve the following:
• Who currently holds the biometric data and who is responsible under Act 843
• Where these data are stored and under what technical safeguards
• What the verifiable protocol is for the secure deletion of these legacy data
• Which independent body will audit, certify, and publish the deletion,” IMANI queried in a brief.
The think tank fears that without clear answers, a second registration exercise risks becoming not a solution, but a repetition of past mistakes.
For now, IMANI insists on full transparency, a public audit, a legal assignment of responsibility under the Data Protection Act, and clear proof of deletion overseen by an independent body, not government alone.
Until this is done, citizens cannot be expected to provide fresh biometric details when the fate of their old records remains a mystery.
“Government must account for the custody, integrity, and present location of these data. Citizens should not be required to register again until this matter is resolved transparently,” it added.
For now, all eyes are on the government on how it will respond to these concerns convincingly so that it does not undermine the patronage of the new exercise.
