A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until July 22, 2026, for further mention 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 granted the adjournment to allow INEC, the second respondent, an opportunity to appear before the court after it failed to attend the proceedings.
During the hearing, counsel to the plaintiff, L.T. Adeh, informed the court that the first respondent had filed a response to the suit and that hearing notices had been served on both respondents. He, however, noted INEC’s absence and requested a short adjournment.
Counsel for the first respondent, Akpama Ekwe, did not oppose the application but stated that he was prepared to proceed with the matter.
He also urged the court to fix the case for hearing, arguing that INEC could not be compelled to appear.
Justice Ibrahim ruled that a brief adjournment was necessary in the interest of fair hearing and ordered that INEC be served with the hearing notice and all court processes before the next sitting.
The suit arose from allegations that Emeka Ike’s voter registration details were unlawfully disclosed on Lere Olayinka’s official X account after screenshots showing the transfer of the actor’s voter registration from Imo State to the Federal Capital Territory surfaced online.
Ike alleges that the information was published without his consent after being accessed through a restricted INEC administrative portal.
He is seeking N10 billion in damages for the alleged violation of his right to privacy, alongside an order directing the removal of the social media post and a public apology.
INEC has maintained that the incident did not result from a cyberattack on its database but from the misuse of authorised internal access credentials.
Speaking after the proceedings, Ekwe described the evidence presented by the plaintiff as inadmissible, insisting that his client committed no wrongdoing.
He argued that the information shared was already in the public domain and did not contain sensitive personal data beyond the actor’s name, transfer number and passport photograph.
