Justice Salim Ibrahim of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a N10 billion fundamental rights suit filed by a Nollywood actor, Emeka Ike, against Lere Olayinka, the Senior Special Assistant to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Salim Ibrahim, in a judgment on Wednesday, upheld the preliminary objections of the respondents on the grounds that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted, and consequently dismissed the main suit for lack of proof.
Ike, who aspired to vie for the House of Representatives seat for AMAC/Bwari Federal Constituency, Abuja, for the 2027 general elections on the platform of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), lost the bid in a primary election.
The FCT Minister’s aide, through a post on X in May, was alleged to have mocked Ike by leaking his confidential voter registration details on social media. The post was said to have shown details of Ike’s voter registration transfer from Imo to the nation’s capital.
Emeka Ike, in the suit filed by L. T. Adeh, sued Olayinka and INEC as first and second respondents in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, wherein he asked the court to declare that Olayinka’s decision to publish his database on X without his approval ‘amounts to gross breach and violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to privacy and the protection of personal data’.
He argued that 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, guaranteed his right to privacy and protection of personal data.
The Nollywood actor asked the court to declare that INEC owes him and other voters a ‘statutory duty of care’ to protect their private data against unauthorised access.
The applicant, therefore, prayed the court to award him N10 billion against Olayinka and INEC as aggravated and general damages, to be paid jointly and severally for violating his fundamental right to privacy.
He sought a declaration that the press release by INEC dated 2 June, in reaction to the viral publication and circulation of his personal voter information and private data on social media by Olayinka, amounts to a tacit admission of guilt and liability to him.
Ike equally sought an order directing Olayinka to immediately retract and pull down the offensive post and publication on his social media X handle, @OlayinkaLere, containing screenshots of his personal voter information and private data.
He sought an order directing him to immediately tender an unreserved apology in writing for breach and violation of his fundamental right.
But responding in a separate counter-affidavit, INEC and Olayinka prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
INEC, in its response, said the issue complained about in the suit filed by Ike was neither classified, sensitive nor confidential information.
The Commission, in the counter-affidavit deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an Assistant Director/Data Protection Officer in the Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, said such information is displayed and published in accordance with the Electoral Act, 2026.
It stressed that the electoral body has 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 responsibility includes the compilation, maintenance, display, publication, certification and management of the register of voters in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act 2026, and the National Data Protection Act 2023.’
It said what was alleged to be posted by Olayinka on his X handle did not emanate from the Commission, adding that, ‘The 2nd respondent, as a data controller, has never breached its statutory duty of care, custody and protection of personal voter information and data it owes the applicant and other voters under its secured portal and restricted database.’
On his part, Olayinka, in a counter-affidavit he deposed to, said the reliefs Ike sought were in bad faith, adding that the only information contained in the document he published was Ike’s name and passport photograph, and that the information was already in the public domain.
He said, contrary to Ike’s averment, the information he published was not only in the public domain but was not accessed through any unlawful means.
Olayinka stated that he did not owe the actor any duty of care and confidentiality and did not require his consent to publish his name and passport photograph that were already in the public domain.
He said Ike, who brought himself to contest election into the lower house, cannot be traumatised by the circulation of his name and passport photograph, which he personally presented to the public when seeking to contest election and as a Nollywood star.
Olayinka argued that information supplied in voters’ cards is not private data because, by the provision of Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC is mandated to publish this not later than 90 days to a general election.
He said, contrary to Ike’s deposition, the only information contained in the document published by him was his name and passport photograph, and that the publication was done when Ike led a team of hoodlums to the INEC office to disrupt INEC’s activities immediately after he declared his intention to contest the election.
According to him, the publication was to remind him that he had just transferred his voter registration area and also to draw the public’s attention to the statutory provision to avoid any breach of the law.
He said, contrary to Ike’s submission, the applicant, who submitted his personal data and information to INEC and to the general public when he decided to contest, cannot feel unsafe and traumatised by the publication of his name and passport photograph.
Olayinka said, contrary to Ike’s averment, INEC admitted in its press release that ‘there was no external breach of its CVR database, no hacking incident and no unauthorised external access to the commission’s ICT infrastructure.’
He argued that the purported injury suffered by Ike was not caused by him, as he is not a data controller under the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, and does not owe him any obligation to safeguard his documents.
Olayinka said the reliefs sought, including the N10 billion, were in bad faith and ‘an indication that the applicant is a gold digger who wants to reap where he did not sow’, insisting that he cannot pay damages for information that was already publicly accessible at the time of the publication, and urged the court to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.