Court Dismisses Emeka Ike’s N10bn Suit Against Wike’s Aide, INEC

SNOW TV NEWS DESK
The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an N10 billion fundamental rights suit filed by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka, Senior Special Assistant to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Justice Salim Ibrahim, in a ruling delivered on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections, ruling that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted. The court also dismissed the substantive case for lack of proof.

Ike had approached the court after Olayinka allegedly published his voter registration details on X in May, an action the actor described as a violation of his right to privacy and the protection of personal data.

The actor sought a declaration that the publication of his information without his consent breached his fundamental rights. He also asked the court to award him N10 billion in aggravated and general damages against Olayinka and INEC, jointly and severally.

The dispute followed Ike’s unsuccessful bid to secure the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) ticket for the AMAC/Bwari Federal Constituency seat in Abuja ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In their responses, INEC and Olayinka urged the court to dismiss the suit. INEC argued that the information in question was neither classified nor sensitive nor confidential.

Olayinka, on his part, maintained that the information he shared was already in the public domain and was not obtained through unlawful means. He also argued that he owed Ike no duty of confidentiality and did not require his consent to publish his name and passport photograph, which he said were publicly available.

The court’s decision represents a legal setback for Ike, who had sought compensation over the alleged disclosure of his personal information.

SNOW TV EDITORIAL ANALYSIS
The ruling highlights the importance of properly constituted lawsuits and credible evidence in fundamental rights cases. However, the dismissal should not automatically be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of publishing personal information online.

The distinction between information being publicly accessible and its lawful use remains important in the digital age. Public figures are entitled to privacy protections, but claimants must establish the legal basis of their claims and provide sufficient evidence. The case also underscores the need for responsible social media conduct and clearer public understanding of data protection rights.