The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until July 22 further proceedings in the N10 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Lere Olayinka, media aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.
Justice S.O. Ibrahim fixed the new date on Thursday, July 2, after the matter came up for mention.
During the proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff, L.T. Adeh, informed the court that the first respondent had filed and served its response to the suit. He also told the court that hearing notices had been served on both respondents but noted that INEC was not represented. Adeh therefore requested an adjournment to allow the electoral commission to appear.
Counsel to the first respondent, Akpama Ekwe, did not oppose the application but stated that he was prepared to proceed with the case. Adeh further disclosed that he intended to file a response to the first respondent’s counter-affidavit before the next hearing.
Justice Ibrahim ruled that a brief adjournment was necessary in the interest of fair hearing and to give INEC an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Although Ekwe urged the court to fix the matter for hearing, arguing that INEC could not be compelled to appear, the judge maintained that all parties should be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to July 22 for further mention and directed that INEC be served with the hearing notice and all court processes before the next sitting.
The suit stems from screenshots circulated on social media showing the transfer of Ike’s voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory.
The actor alleges that Olayinka unlawfully published his voter registration details on his verified X account without his consent after the information was allegedly obtained from a restricted INEC administrative portal. He is seeking N10 billion in damages for the alleged violation of his constitutional right to privacy, alongside an order directing the removal of the post and a public apology.
INEC has maintained that the incident was not the result of a cyberattack on its database but was caused by the misuse of authorised internal access credentials.
Speaking after the court session, Ekwe argued that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were inadmissible and insisted that his client had committed no wrongdoing.
He maintained that the information published was already in the public domain and contained no sensitive personal data beyond Ike’s name, transfer number and passport photograph.
“There is no case against my client. What my client published, apart from being in the public domain, does not contain any personal information,” Ekwe said.
Adeh, however, dismissed the defence, insisting that INEC had no valid answer to the claims. He expressed confidence that the case could set an important legal precedent for the protection of voters’ personal data in Nigeria.
He added that the alleged unauthorised access to Ike’s voter registration records raised concerns that the personal information of other voters could also have been compromised, stressing that the court’s eventual decision would have far-reaching implications for the security of Nigeria’s electoral data.
