FHC Abuja: Emeka Ike N10 Billion Fundamental Rights Suit Dismissed

• The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a N10 billion fundamental rights suit filed by actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka and INEC.
• Ike alleged that Olayinka violated his privacy by publishing his voter registration details on X, citing Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution and the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.
• INEC argued it has statutory power to make voter information public without consent, stating the data was not confidential and did not originate from its database.
• Justice Salim Ibrahim dismissed the suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, after upholding preliminary objections and finding a lack of proof for the substantive claims.
• The ruling clarifies that certain publicly available electoral information may not be considered confidential under data privacy laws, impacting voter data privacy in Nigeria.

The court's decision to dismiss the Emeka Ike fundamental rights suit dismissal, partly for lack of proof and partly by upholding preliminary objections, suggests a judicial stance that not all personal data, especially within the context of electoral processes, is subject to the same level of confidentiality as private information.

The Federal High Court in Abuja recently dismissed a N10 billion fundamental rights lawsuit initiated by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka, the Senior Special Assistant on Public Communications to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Justice Salim Ibrahim, presiding over the case, upheld preliminary objections raised by the respondents, which challenged the suit's competence and proper constitution. Consequently, the substantive suit, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, was also dismissed due to a lack of sufficient proof.

The actor's legal action arose from an incident in May when Olayinka allegedly published Ike's voter registration details on his X (formerly Twitter) handle. Ike contended that this public disclosure, which included information about the transfer of his voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory, constituted a violation of his fundamental right to privacy. He sought substantial damages and an order for Olayinka to remove the publication and issue a public apology for the alleged infringement of his rights. Ike, who had unsuccessfully vied for the AMAC/Bwari Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives during the Nigerian Democratic Congress primary for the 2027 general elections, also requested declarations that INEC had a statutory duty to protect his personal data and that its June 2 press statement tacitly admitted liability.

Emeka Ike's legal team, led by L.T. Adeh, grounded his claims in Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Sections 24 and 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. He argued that the publication of his voter registration details without his explicit consent amounted to a significant breach of his privacy and personal data protection rights. Furthermore, he asserted that INEC bore a statutory duty of care to safeguard the personal information of all registered voters from unauthorized access, and that the commission's public statement following the incident implied an admission of guilt.

Conversely, both INEC and Lere Olayinka urged the court to reject the suit, maintaining that the public dissemination of the voter information did not infringe upon Ike's fundamental rights. INEC, through a counter-affidavit deposed by Anthonia Makwe, an assistant director and data protection officer in its Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, argued that the information in question was neither classified, sensitive, nor confidential. The commission asserted its statutory and constitutional authority to make certain voter information accessible to the general public without requiring individual consent. INEC further clarified that its responsibilities include the compilation, maintenance, display, publication, certification, and management of the voters' register, in compliance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, 2026, and the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. Crucially, INEC also denied that the specific information published by Olayinka originated from its official database.

This ruling carries significant implications for voter data privacy in Nigeria, particularly concerning the scope of fundamental rights when information is deemed publicly available by statutory provisions. The court's decision to dismiss the Emeka Ike fundamental rights suit dismissal, partly for lack of proof and partly by upholding preliminary objections, suggests a judicial stance that not all personal data, especially within the context of electoral processes, is subject to the same level of confidentiality as private information. INEC's successful argument that it possesses the statutory power to make voter information public without individual consent highlights a key distinction between general personal data protection and data collected for public electoral purposes.

The outcome of the Lere Olayinka INEC lawsuit underscores the challenges individuals may face in asserting privacy claims against public bodies when the information in question is statutorily permitted for public access. While the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 aims to bolster data protection, this case indicates that the interpretation of Section 37 1999 Constitution privacy rights must consider the specific context and legal mandates governing public institutions like INEC. The judgment serves as a reminder that the public nature of certain electoral data may limit the scope of privacy claims, even when such information is shared on platforms like X.

This ruling clarifies the scope of fundamental right to privacy and personal data protection concerning publicly available voter registration details in Nigeria, indicating that certain electoral information may not be considered confidential. Lawyers should advise clients on the limits of data privacy claims against public bodies like INEC when the information is statutorily permitted for public access, and ensure robust proof for such claims.

Source: Original reporting via PUNCH Newspapers