The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a N10 billion fundamental rights lawsuit filed by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka, a senior aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Salim Ibrahim delivered the ruling on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, after upholding preliminary objections filed by the respondents. The court held that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted, and also dismissed the substantive claims for lack of sufficient proof.
Ike had approached the court over the alleged publication of his voter registration details on the social media platform X by Olayinka in May 2026.
The actor argued that the publication exposed his personal information, including details of the transfer of his voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory, without his consent.
In the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, Ike alleged that the publication violated his 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 provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, to support his claims.
The actor sought N10 billion in general and aggravated damages against Olayinka and INEC. He also asked the court to order the removal of the disputed publication from Olayinka’s X account and compel him to issue a written apology.
Ike further argued that INEC had a legal responsibility to protect the personal information of registered voters from unauthorised access and disclosure.
He also claimed that a statement released by the electoral commission on June 2, following the controversy, amounted to an admission of liability.
INEC DENIES DATA BREACH
In its response, INEC urged the court to dismiss the case, maintaining that the information at the centre of the dispute was neither classified nor confidential.
The commission argued that it had the constitutional and statutory authority to make certain voter information available to the public in line with the Electoral Act, 2026, and other relevant laws.
INEC also denied that the information allegedly published by Olayinka originated from its systems. It maintained that there had been no hacking incident, external breach or unauthorised access to its secured voter registration database.
The commission further argued that its responsibilities included compiling, maintaining, displaying and publishing the voters’ register in accordance with applicable laws.
WIKE’S AIDE DENIES WRONGDOING
Olayinka also denied violating Ike’s rights, arguing that the material he shared contained only the actor’s name and passport photograph, which he claimed were already publicly available.
He maintained that he did not obtain the information unlawfully and insisted that he owed Ike no duty of confidentiality that required him to obtain consent before publishing the material.
The presidentially appointed?
Olayinka further argued that Ike had already made his identity and photograph public through his career in Nollywood and his decision to seek political office.
He said the publication was intended to draw attention to Ike’s transfer of voter registration and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
The aide also cited INEC’s June 2 statement, which he said supported his position that the commission’s voter registration database had not been externally compromised.
He urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing the N10 billion damages claim as unjustified and brought in bad faith.
CASE LINKED TO IKE’S POLITICAL AMBITION
The legal dispute arose as Ike pursued a political ambition ahead of the 2027 general elections. The actor sought to contest the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC)/Bwari Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives under the platform of the Nigeria Democratic Congress.
However, he lost the party’s primary election.
Following the court’s decision, the N10 billion claim against Olayinka and INEC was dismissed. The ruling represents a legal setback for the actor, who had sought both financial compensation and orders compelling the removal and retraction of the disputed social media publication.
