Court Dismisses Emeka Ike’s N10bn Privacy Suit Against INEC, Olayinka

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed N10 billion rights suit filed by Nollywood actor, Mr Emeka Ike, against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Senior Special Assistant to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Lere Olayinka.
Justice Salim Ibrahim, in a judgment, upheld the preliminary objections of the respondents on the grounds that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted.
Justice Ibrahim also dismissed the main suit on the ground of lack of proof.
The Tide source 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 the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), lost the bid in a primary poll.
The FCT minister’s aide, through a post on X (formerly Twitter) in May, was alleged to have mocked Mr Ike by leaking his confidential voter registration details on social media.
The post was said to have shown details of Mr Ike’s voter registration transfer from Imo State to the nation’s capital.
Meanwhile, Mr Ike, in the suit filed by L. T. Adeh, sued Mr Olayinka and INEC as 1st and 2nd respondents in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026.
He asked the court to declare that Mr Olayinka’s publication of his personal details on INEC’s 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 1999 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.
But responding in separate counter-affidavits, INEC and Mr 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 Mr 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 that 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.”
It 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.
According to the electoral umpire, 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”, INEC said.
On his part, Mr Olayinka, in the counter-affidavit he deposed to, said the reliefs Mr Ike sought were 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 averment, the information he published was not only in the public domain but was 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 National Assembly, 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 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, no later than 90 days to a general election.
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 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 just transferred his voter registration area.
He said it was also to draw the public 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 general public when he decided to contest cannot feel unsafe and traumatised by the publication of his name and passport photograph.
Mr Olayinka said contrary to Mr 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 commissions 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 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.”
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.