Court fixes July 22 for further mention in Emeka Ike’s N10bn privacy suit against INEC, Wike’s aide

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until July 22 for further mention of the N10 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Emeka Ike, a Nollywood actor against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Lere Olayinka, media aide to Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.

Justice S.O. Ibrahim fixed the new date after L.T. Adeh, counsel to the plaintiff, informed the court that INEC, the second respondent, was absent despite being served with a hearing notice.

Adeh told the court that the first respondent had filed a response to the suit and that he intended to file a reply to the counter-affidavit before the next sitting.

Akpama Ekwe, Counsel to the first respondent, said he was ready to proceed with the matter and did not oppose the request for an adjournment. He, however, urged the court to fix the case for hearing, arguing that INEC could not be compelled to appear.

Justice Ibrahim said the short adjournment was necessary in the interest of a fair hearing and to allow the electoral commission to participate in the proceedings.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter to July 22 for further mention and directed that INEC be served with the hearing notice together with all processes filed in the suit before the next adjourned date.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, arose from allegations that Ike’s voter registration details were disclosed without his consent on Olayinka’s official X account after screenshots showing the transfer of his voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory circulated on social media.

Ike alleges that the information was obtained from a restricted INEC administrative portal and published without his authorisation, constituting a breach of his constitutional right to privacy.

He is seeking N10 billion in damages, an order directing the removal of the social media post, and a public apology from the defendants.

INEC has maintained that the incident did not result from a compromise of its database, but from the misuse of authorised internal access credentials.

Addressing journalists after the proceedings, Ekwe argued that the plaintiff’s evidence was inadmissible and insisted that his client did not violate any law.

He said the documents published did not contain personal data beyond Ike’s name, transfer number and passport photograph, adding that INEC had already stated that its servers were not breached.

“There is no case against my client. What my client published, apart from being in the public domain, does not contain any personal information.

The only thing that the document contained was the name of Emeka Ike and the transfer number. The second document contained his passport photograph and his name. There was no personal data published as alleged,” he said.

Adeh, on his part, said he believed INEC had no defence to the claims, arguing that the case could set an important precedent for the protection of voters’ personal data.

He said the case was intended to ensure greater accountability in the handling of citizens’ information and to prevent similar incidents in the future.