Emeka Ike’s ₦10bn Suit Lacks Merit, INEC Tells Abuja Court

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a ₦10 billion fundamental rights suit filed by Nollywood actor and House of Representatives aspirant, Emeka Ike, arguing that voter registration information is neither confidential nor protected from public scrutiny under Nigerian electoral law.

INEC made the argument in a counter-affidavit filed in opposition to Ike's suit, insisting that the publication of voter registration information is authorised by law and forms part of the commission's statutory responsibilities in the electoral process.

The commission maintained that the information at the centre of the dispute was published in accordance with the Electoral Act 2026, which, according to INEC, empowers it to make voter registration records available for public scrutiny without requiring the individual consent of registered voters.

The counter-affidavit was deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an Assistant Director and Data Protection Officer in INEC's Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, in response to the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026.

Ike had sued INEC and Lere Olayinka, media aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, alleging that the publication of his voter registration details on X violated his constitutional rights to privacy and personal data protection.

The actor is seeking ₦10 billion in damages over the alleged breach.

However, both INEC and Olayinka have challenged the basis of the claim.

In its response, INEC argued that the voter information in question was published as part of the legal framework governing the compilation and display of the national register of voters.

The commission maintained that its constitutional and statutory responsibilities include the compilation, maintenance, display and publication of the national register of voters.

According to INEC, these responsibilities are exercised under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act 2026 and the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

The electoral body further argued that the information complained of by Ike was neither sensitive nor confidential.

It also maintained that the document allegedly published by Olayinka did not originate from INEC.

Olayinka, through his counsel, Akpama Ekwe, similarly urged the court to reject Ike's claim.

He argued that the information he shared was already in the public domain and could be lawfully accessed.

According to Olayinka, the publication contained only Ike's name and passport photograph, which he argued did not amount to a breach of any duty of confidentiality.

He further contended that Ike, as a person seeking elective office and a public figure, could not reasonably claim to have suffered trauma from the circulation of information he had voluntarily provided as part of the electoral process and which, according to him, was already publicly accessible.

Olayinka also relied on Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which requires INEC to display and publish the register of voters before a general election to allow members of the public to scrutinise the register.

The provision, he argued, supports the position that voter registration information is intended to be available for public inspection as part of efforts to ensure transparency and integrity in the electoral process.

Ike's case, however, centres on whether the publication and circulation of his specific voter registration information amounted to an unlawful breach of his privacy and data protection rights.

The dispute therefore places electoral transparency and public access to voter registration information against the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to personal data.

The court will ultimately determine whether the publication complained of was lawful and whether Ike's fundamental rights were breached as alleged.

After hearing submissions from the parties, the trial judge adjourned the matter until October 12, 2026, for hearing.

Until the court determines the substantive issues, the allegations and legal arguments presented by the parties remain contested.