The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed a ₦10bn fundamental rights suit filed by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communications to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Salim Ibrahim dismissed the suit after upholding preliminary objections filed by the respondents, who challenged its competence and proper constitution. The judge also dismissed the substantive suit for lack of proof.
Ike had accused Olayinka of violating his right to privacy by publishing his voter registration details on his X account in May.
The actor alleged that the publication exposed his personal information, including details of the transfer of his voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory.
He subsequently instituted the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, through his lawyer, L.T. Adeh, seeking ₦10bn in general and aggravated damages against the respondents.
Ike, who aspired to contest the AMAC/Bwari Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives in the 2027 general elections on the platform of the Nigerian Democratic Congress, lost the party’s primary election.
In his suit, the actor asked the court to declare that Olayinka’s publication of his voter registration details without his consent “amounts to gross breach and violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to privacy and the protection of personal data”.
He relied on Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Sections 24 and 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, to support his claims.
Ike also sought a declaration that INEC owed him and other registered voters a statutory duty of care to protect their personal information against unauthorised access.
He further asked the court to declare that INEC’s June 2 press statement, issued in response to the circulation of his voter information on social media, amounted to a tacit admission of guilt and liability.
The actor also sought an order directing Olayinka to remove the disputed publication from his X account, @OlayinkaLere, and issue a written apology for the alleged violation of his rights.
However, INEC and Olayinka urged the court to dismiss the suit, maintaining that the publication did not constitute a breach of Ike’s fundamental rights.
INEC, Olayinka deny privacy violation
In its counter-affidavit, INEC argued that the information in question was neither classified, sensitive nor confidential, maintaining that it was legally empowered to make certain voter information available to the public.
The commission’s response was deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an assistant director and data protection officer in its Legal Drafting and Clearance Department.
INEC argued that it had the “statutory and constitutional power to make available information of its voters to the general public without the consent of any registered voter”.
The commission said its statutory responsibilities included compiling, maintaining, displaying, publishing, certifying and managing the voters’ register in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, 2026, and the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023.
It also denied that the information allegedly published by Olayinka originated from its database, insisting that it had not breached its duty to protect voters’ personal information within its secured portal and restricted database.
In his counter-affidavit, Olayinka also denied wrongdoing, arguing that the document he published contained only Ike’s name and passport photograph, which he claimed were already in the public domain.
He maintained that the information had not been obtained through unlawful means and that he owed the actor no duty of confidentiality requiring his consent before publication.
The FCT minister’s aide further argued that Ike, having presented himself as a public figure and expressed an intention to contest an election, could not reasonably claim to have suffered trauma from the circulation of his name and photograph.
Olayinka also alleged that the publication followed an incident in which Ike led a group of hoodlums to INEC’s office to disrupt its activities after declaring his intention to contest the election.
According to him, the publication was intended to remind the actor that he had recently transferred his voter registration area and draw public attention to the relevant electoral provisions.
He cited Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, arguing that INEC was required to publish the voters’ register within the period prescribed by law ahead of a general election.
Olayinka also relied on INEC’s June 2 statement, which he said confirmed that there had been no external breach of its continuous voter registration database, hacking incident or unauthorised access to its information technology infrastructure.
The statement, as quoted in his counter-affidavit, said, “There was no external breach of its CVR database, no hacking incident and no unauthorised external access to the commission’s ICT infrastructure.”
He further argued that he was not a data controller under the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, and therefore had no statutory obligation to safeguard the actor’s information in the manner alleged.
Rejecting Ike’s claim for damages, Olayinka described the ₦10bn demand as being made in bad faith, calling it “an indication that the applicant is a gold digger who wants to reap where he did not sow”.
He insisted that he should not be held liable for publishing information he claimed was already publicly accessible and urged the court to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.
The court ultimately dismissed the case after upholding the respondents’ preliminary objections and finding insufficient proof to sustain the substantive claims.
Editorial note: Before publication, verify the judge’s name, the precise grounds for dismissal, and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act cited in the report against the court ruling and filed processes. The allegations made by the respondents have been attributed to them rather than presented as established facts.
