News Investigators/ The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday advised the Nollywood actor, Emeka Ike, and Lere Olayinka, Senior Special Assistant to FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, to explore out-of-court settlement in the N10 billion rights suit.
Justice Salim Ibrahim gave the advised to parties, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), during the proceeding.
When the case was called on Wednesday, all the parties were represented in court.
Leonard Adeh, who appeared for Ike, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for further mention.
INEC’s lawyer, Solomon Umoh, SAN, said all their processes, including a counter affidavit, in response to the suit, had been filed and served on the parties.
Adeh acknowledged receipt of the commission’s processes which he saidbwere only served on them on Tuesday.
He said they were still within time to respond.
Justice Ibrahim then advised the parties to see if they could also explore amicable settlement out of court.
Responding, counsel for Olayinka, Akpama Ekwe, who had also filed his counter affidavit, told the court that the question about reconciliation should be answered by the applicant (Ike).
Adeh then stated that if the respondents (Olayinka and INEC) made an offer for settlement, “they are very much available to amicable settlement.”
The lawyer said until such offer comes, the matter should be adjourned for definite hearing.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Oct. 12 for hearing by agreement of all the counsel.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ike, who aspired to vie for the House of Representatives’ seat for AMAC/Bwari Federal Constituency, Abuja for the 2027 general elections on the platform of Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), lost the bid in a primary poll.
The FCT minister’s aide, through a post on X in May, was alleged to have mocked Ike by leaking his confidential voter registration details on social media.
The post was said to have shown details of Ike’s voter registration transfer from Imo to the nation’s capital.
Meanwhile, Ike, in the suit filed by Adeh, sued Olayinka and INEC as 1st and 2nd respondents in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1272/2026.
He asked the court to declare that Olayinka’s decision to publish his database on X without his approval “amounts to gross breach and violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to privacy and the protection of personal data”.
Ike argued that Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 12 of the universal declaration of human rights, and Sections 24 & 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023 guaranteed his right to privacy and protection of personal data.
The actor asked the court to declare that INEC owes him and other voters a “statutory duty of care” to protect their private data against unauthorised access.
The applicant, therefore, prayed the court to award him N10 billion against Olayinka and INEC as aggravated and general damages, to be paid jointly and severally for violating his fundamental right to privacy.
He sought a declaration that the press release by INEC dated June 2, in reaction to the viral publication and circulation of his personal voter information and private data on social media by Olayinka, amounts to a tacit admission of guilt and liability to him.
Ike, equally, sought an order directing Olayinka to immediately retract and pull down the offensive post and publication on his social media X handle, @OlayinkaLere, containing screenshots of his personal voter information and private data.
He sought an order directing him to immediately tender an unrreserved apology in writing for breach and violation of his fundamental right.
But responding in a separate counter affidavits, INEC and Olayinka prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
INEC, in its response, said the issue complained about in the suit filed by Ike was neither classified, sensitive nor confidential information.
The commission, in the counter affidavit deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an Assistant Director/Data Protection Officer in the Legal Drafting and Clearance Department, said that such information are displayed and published in accordance with the Electoral Act, 2026.
It stressed that the electoral body has the “statutorily and constitutional power to make available information of its voters to the general public without the consent of any registered voter.”
It said its “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.
It said what was alleged to be posted by Olayinka on his X handle did not emanate from the commission.
“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.”
On his part, Olayinka in the counter affidavit he deposed to, said the reliefs Ike sought was in bad faith.
He said the only information contained in the document he published was Ike’s name and passport photograph, and that the information was already in the public domain..
He said contrary to Ike’s averment, the information he published was not only in the public domain but was not accessed through any unlawful means.
Olayinka stated that he did not owe the actor any duty of care and confidentiality and did not require his consent to publish his name and passport photograph that was already in the public domain.
He said Ike, who brought himself to contest election into the lower house, cannot be traumatised 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.
He argued that information supplied in voters card is not private data because by the provision of Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026, INEC is mandated to publish this, not latter than 90 days to a general elections.
He said contrary to Ike’s deposition, the only information contained in the document published by him was his name and passport photograph.
He said the publication was done when Ike led a team of hoodlums to INEC office to disrupt INEC’s activities immediately he declared his intention to contest the election.
According to him, the publication was to remind him that he just transfered his voters registration area.
He said it was to also draw the public attention to the statutory provision to avoid any breach of the law.
He said contrary to Ike’s submission, the applicant who submitted his personal data and information to INEC and to general public when he decided to contest cannot feel unsafe and traumatised by the publication of his name and passport photograph.
Olayinka said contrary to Ike’s averment, INEC admitted in its press release that “there was no external breach of its CVR database, no hacking incident and no unauthorised external access to the commissions ICT infrastructure.”
He argued that the purported injury suffered by Ike was not caused by him who is not a data controller under the Nigerian Data Protection Act, 2023, and who does not owe him any obligation to safeguard his documents.
Olayinka stated that the reliefs sought, including the N10 billion, was in bad faith and “an indication that the applicant is a gold digger, who wants to reap where he did not sow.”
He insisted that he cannot pay damages for information that was already publicly accessible at the time of the publication.
He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.
NAN
