The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has told a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja that, the issue complained of in the suit filed by National Democratic Congress (NDC) House of Representatives aspirant and Nollywood Actor, Emeka Ike, was neither classified, sensitive nor confidential information.
INEC reiterated that such information are displayed and published in accordance with the Electoral Act 2026, adding that the electoral body has the “statutorily and constitutional function/power to make available information of its voters to the general public without the consent of any registered voter.”
This was contained in a counter affidavit deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an Assistant Director/Data Protection Officer in the Legal Drafting and Clearance department of the Commission, in opposition to suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja on June 15, 2026 by Emeka Ike.
The Nollywood actor and politician had sued INEC and Lere Olayinka, media aide to the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike over alleged violation of his fundamental right to privacy.
The suit filed through his counsel, Leonard Adeh, stems from allegations that Ike’s personal voter registration details were unlawfully disclosed on the media aide’s official X handleafter screenshots showing the transfer of his voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory surfaced on social media.
Ike contends that the information was published by Olayinka without his consent, allegedly after being accessed from a restricted INEC administrative portal.
In the suit, the actor is seeking N10 billion in damages for the alleged breach of his right to privacy, as well as orders directing the removal of the social media post and a public apology.
Olayinka had said in his own counter affidavit filed by his counsel, Akpama Ekwe, that the only information contained in the document he published was the Applicant’s name, and passport photograph, and that the information was already in the public domain.
He said in the counter affidavit that, “Contrary to paragraph 6 of the Applicants supporting affidavit, the information published by the 1st Respondent (Lere Olayinka) was already in the public domain and was not accessed through any unlawful neans.
“That contrary to paragraph 8 of the Applicant’s supporting affidavit, the 1st Respondent does not owe the Applicant any duty of care and confidentiality and does not require the consent of the Applicant to publish the Applicant’s
name and passport photograph that was already in the public domain.
“That contrary to paragraph 10 of the supporting affidavit, the Applicant, who brought himself to contest election into the Federal House of Representatives, cannot be traumatized by the circulation of his name and passport photograph
which he personally presented to the public when seeking to contest election, and as a Nollywood star.
“That information supplied in voters card is not private data because, by the provision of Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, ‘the Commission shall, not latter than 90 days to a general election, appoint a period of seven days during which a copy of the voters register for each Local Government, Area Council or Ward shall be displayed or published for public scrutiny at every registration area and on its official website and on its official website or any website established by the Commission for that purpose.’
“That contrary to paragraph 11 of the Applicant’s supporting affidavit, the only information contained in the document published by the 1st Respondent was the Applicant’s name, and passport photograph.”
In its own counter affidavit, INEC which is the second respondent in the suit averred that “In response to paragraph 5 of the Applicant’s Originating Motion, the 2nd Respondent statutory responsibility includes the compilation,
maintenance, display, publication, certification and management of the register of voters in accordance with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act 2026, and the National Data Protection Act 2023.
“That, the 2nd Respondent has the statutorily and constitutional function/power to make available information of its voters to the general public without the consent of any registered voter. That the issue complained of is not classified, sensitive nor confidential and that such information are displayed and published in accordance with the Electoral Act 2026.
“That, what is alleged to be posted by the 1st Respondent on his X platform did not emanate from the 2nd Respondent. That, the 2nd Respondent, as a data controller, has never breached its statutory duty of care, custody and protection of personal voter information and data it owes the Applicant and other Voters under its secured portal and restricted database.”
The matter, which came up on Wednesday before Justice Salim Ibrahim was adjourned till October 12, 2026, for hearing.
END
Comments