The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the voter information published about Nollywood actor and Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) House of Representatives aspirant, Emeka Ike, does not qualify as classified, sensitive or confidential data.
The commission made the submission in response to a ₦10 billion fundamental rights suit filed by Ike against INEC and Lere Olayinka, media aide to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.
Ike had approached the court, through his lawyer, Leonard Adeh, alleging that Olayinka violated his constitutional right to privacy by publishing his personal details on X without his consent.
He asked the court to declare that the publication amounted to a breach of his right to privacy and protection of personal data.
However, in a counter-affidavit deposed to by Anthonia Makwe, an Assistant Director and Data Protection Officer in INEC’s egal Drafting and Clearance Department, the electoral commission argued that the information in question was legally available to the public under the Electoral Act 2026.
“The 2nd Respondent’s 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.
“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.
“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.
“What is alleged to be posted by the 1st Respondent on his X platform did not emanate from the 2nd Respondent.
READ ALSO: Emeka Ike Sues Wike’s Aide Over Alleged INEC Personal Data Leak
“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 affidavit stated.
Olayinka also urged the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that the information he shared was already in the public domain and contained only Ike’s name and passport photograph.
In his own counter-affidavit, filed through his lawyer, Akpama Ekwe, Olayinka maintained that he neither obtained the information unlawfully nor violated Ike’s privacy.
“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 means.
“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.
“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.
“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 or every registration area and on its official website or any website established by the Commission for that purpose.
“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.”
Justice adjourned the matter until October 12, 2026, for hearing.