Court dismisses Nollywood actor’s N10bn damages suit against Wike’s aide, INEC

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed a N10 billion rights suit filed by the Nollywood actor, Emeka Ike, against Lere Olayinka, spokesperson for FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Judge Salim Ibrahim, in a judgement, upheld the preliminary objections of the respondents on the grounds that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted.

Mr Ibrahim also held that suit lacked proof for its claims.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr 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 Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), lost the bid in a primary poll.

Mr Olayinka, the FCT minister’s aide, through a post on X in May, allegedly mocked Mr Ike and leaked his confidential voter registration details on social media, in the aftermath of the actor’s loss.

The post allegedly showed details of Mr Ike’s voter registration transfer from Imo State to the nation’s capital.

Meanwhile, Mr Ike, through his lawyer L. T. Adeh sued Mr Olayinka and INEC in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026.

He asked the court to declare that Mr 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.”

Mr Ike argued that Section 37 of the Nigerian constitution, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Sections 24 & 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 guaranteed his right to privacy and protection of personal data.

The actor asked the court to declare that INEC owed 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 Mr 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 Mr Olayinka, amounted to a tacit admission of guilt and liability to him.

Mr Ike also sought an order directing Mr 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 separate counter-affidavits, INEC and Mr Olayinka urged the court to dismiss the suit.

INEC stated that the subject of the post complained about by Mr Ike in the suit was neither classified, sensitive nor confidential information.

In the counter-affidavit sworn by Anthonia Makwe, an Assistant Director/Data Protection Officer in the Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, said that such information is displayed and published in accordance with the Electoral Act, 2026.

It stressed that the electoral body had the “statutorily and constitutional power to make available information of its voters to the general public without the consent of any registered voter.”

It said its statutory responsibility included 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 Mr Olayinka on his X handle did not emanate from the commission.

“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, ” the commission also stated.

On his part, Mr Olayinka stated in his counter-affidavit he personally swore, Mr Ike’s suit was brought in bad faith.

He said the only information contained in the document he published was Mr Ike’s name and passport photograph, and that the information was already in the public domain.

He said contrary to Mr Ike’s claims, the information he published was not only in the public domain, it was also not accessed through any unlawful means.

Mr 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 was already in the public domain.

He said Mr Ike, who brought himself to contest election into the House of Representatives, 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.

He argued that information supplied in voter cards is not private data because by the provision of Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC is mandated to publish such information, not later than 90 days to the general elections.

He said contrary to Mr Ike’s deposition, the only information contained in the document published by him was his name and passport photograph.

He said the publication was done when Mr Ike led a team of hoodlums to INEC office to disrupt INEC’s activities immediately he declared his intention to contest the election.

According to him, the publication was to remind him of the recent change of his voter registration area.

He said it was to also draw the public’s attention to the statutory provision to avoid any breach of the law.

He said contrary to Mr Ike’s submission, the applicant who submitted his personal data and information to INEC and to the general public when he decided to contest could not feel unsafe and traumatised by the publication of his name and passport photograph.

Mr Olayinka said contrary to Mr Ike’s claim, 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 Mr Ike was not caused by him who is not a data controller under the Nigerian Data Protection Act, 2023, and who does not owe him any obligation to safeguard his documents.

Mr Olayinka stated that the prayers in the suit, including N10 billion in damages, was in bad faith and “an indication that the applicant is a gold digger, who wants to reap where he did not sow.”

He insisted that he cannot pay damages for information that was already publicly accessible at the time of the publication.

He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.