The legal battle between Nollywood actor Emeka Ike and Lere Olayinka, a media aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, over the publication of the actor’s voter registration information has ended with a setback for the entertainer.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed Ike’s N10 billion fundamental rights suit against Olayinka and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), ruling that the case was incompetent and improperly constituted.
Justice Salim Ibrahim, who delivered the judgment, upheld preliminary objections raised by the respondents. The judge also dismissed the substantive suit for lack of proof, according to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).
Ike had accused Olayinka of violating his right to privacy by sharing information relating to his voter registration transfer on the social media platform X without his permission.
He subsequently approached the court, seeking financial compensation and other orders against the minister’s aide and INEC.
The dispute emerged in May as the actor pursued his political ambition ahead of the 2027 general elections.
How the dispute started
Ike had expressed interest in contesting for the House of Representatives seat representing the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC)/Bwari Federal Constituency in the Federal Capital Territory under the platform of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC).
However, his ambition to secure the party’s ticket did not materialise, as he lost the primary election.
During the period, a post attributed to Olayinka circulated on X, reportedly containing information about the transfer of Ike’s voter registration from Imo State to Abuja.
The actor alleged that the publication exposed his personal information without authorisation and amounted to an infringement of his fundamental rights.
He subsequently instituted the action, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, through his lawyer, L. T. Adeh, naming Olayinka and INEC as the first and second respondents.
Ike’s demand for N10bn compensation
In his application, the actor asked the court to declare that publishing his voter registration information without his consent violated his constitutional 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 argument.
Ike maintained that INEC had a responsibility to protect the personal information entrusted to it by registered voters and prevent unauthorised disclosure.
He therefore requested N10 billion in aggravated and general damages against the two respondents, jointly and severally, over the alleged violation of his rights.
Beyond the financial claim, the actor sought an order compelling Olayinka to remove the disputed post from his X account, @OlayinkaLere.
He also wanted the minister’s aide to issue a written apology for the alleged disclosure.
Additionally, Ike challenged an INEC statement released on June 2 in response to the controversy. He argued that the commission’s response amounted to an implied admission of guilt and liability over the publication of his voter information.
INEC defends publication of voter information
INEC rejected the allegations, arguing that the information involved was neither classified nor confidential.
In a counter-affidavit deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an assistant director and data protection officer in its Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, the commission maintained that making certain voter information available to the public fell within its statutory responsibilities.
According to INEC, its duties include compiling, maintaining, displaying, publishing, certifying and managing the register of voters in line with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, 2026, and the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023.
The commission also denied that the material allegedly shared by Olayinka originated from its systems.
It maintained that it had not breached its obligations concerning the protection of voter information held in its secured portal and restricted database.
INEC consequently urged the court to reject Ike’s claims, insisting that the allegations did not establish a failure on its part to discharge its legal responsibilities.
Olayinka explains why he shared the information
Olayinka also opposed the suit, arguing that the publication contained only Ike’s name and passport photograph, which he claimed were already publicly available.
He denied obtaining the information unlawfully and maintained that he did not require the actor’s consent to share details already in the public domain.
The aide further argued that Ike had voluntarily presented himself to the public through his political ambition and career in the entertainment industry.
According to Olayinka, the actor could not reasonably claim to have suffered the alleged injury simply because his name and photograph appeared on social media.
He also cited Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, arguing that the law required INEC to publish the register of voters no later than 90 days before a general election.
Olayinka alleged that Ike had led a group of hoodlums to an INEC office to disrupt the commission’s activities shortly after declaring his intention to contest the election.
He said the publication was intended to draw attention to the actor’s recent voter registration transfer and the applicable electoral provisions.
The allegation was part of Olayinka’s response to the suit and was not stated as a separate finding by the court.
The minister’s aide further 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.
He argued that he was not a data controller under the Nigeria Data Protection Act and did not owe Ike a legal obligation to safeguard his voter registration documents.
Olayinka consequently described the demand for N10 billion as unjustified and urged the court to dismiss the case.
Court delivers final decision
After considering the parties’ positions, Justice Ibrahim upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections, holding that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted.
The court also dismissed the substantive claims for lack of proof.
The decision left Ike without the requested N10 billion compensation, an order for the removal of the disputed publication, or the written apology he had sought from Olayinka.
The case brought attention to questions surrounding the publication of voter information, the responsibilities of electoral authorities and the protection of personal data in Nigeria.
However, the judgment, as reported by NAN, centred on the competence and constitution of the suit and the failure to establish the substantive claims.
About The Author
