EssentialNews
USD USD 1.00 → EUR EUR 0.90
USD USD 1.00 → GBP GBP 0.75
USD USD 1.00 → JPY JPY 157.91
USD USD 1.00 → CAD CAD 1.40
USD USD 1.00 → AUD AUD 1.42
USD USD 1.00 → CHF CHF 0.83
USD USD 1.00 → CNY CNY 6.68
USD USD 1.00 → INR INR 95.30
USD USD 1.00 → NGN NGN 1,346.24
USD USD 1.00 → EUR EUR 0.90
USD USD 1.00 → GBP GBP 0.75
USD USD 1.00 → JPY JPY 157.91
USD USD 1.00 → CAD CAD 1.40
USD USD 1.00 → AUD AUD 1.42
USD USD 1.00 → CHF CHF 0.83
USD USD 1.00 → CNY CNY 6.68
USD USD 1.00 → INR INR 95.30
USD USD 1.00 → NGN NGN 1,346.24



ESSENTIAL NEWS
Breaking News • Analysis • Opinion
LATEST EDITION

BREAKING NEWS

Court Dismisses Emeka Ike’s ₦10 Billion Privacy Suit Against Wike’s Aide And Inec
Photo: Staff Photographer

COURT DISMISSES EMEKA IKE’S ₦10 BILLION PRIVACY SUIT AGAINST WIKE’S AIDE AND INEC

2 readers
shares
reactions
A

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a ₦10 billion lawsuit filed by Nollywood actor Emeka Ike against Lere Olayinka, an aide to FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Justice Salim Ibrahim ruled that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted.

Ike brought the case after Olayinka published information on social media concerning the transfer of his voter registration from Imo State to Abuja.

The actor argued that sharing the details without his consent violated his right to privacy and the protection of his personal data.

He asked the court to order Olayinka to delete the post, publish a retraction and issue a written apology. He also sought ₦10 billion in aggravated and general damages from Olayinka and INEC.

The dispute arose while Ike was seeking the Nigeria Democratic Congress ticket to contest the AMAC/Bwari federal constituency seat in the 2027 elections. He subsequently lost the party’s primary.

Opposing the lawsuit, Olayinka and INEC argued that the information was not confidential and had not been obtained unlawfully.

Olayinka maintained that the post contained Ike’s name and passport photograph, which he said were already publicly available.

The court dismissed the action on grounds relating to how the suit was constituted. The supplied report did not provide further details of the procedural defects identified by the judge.

READER ENGAGEMENT

SHARE THIS STORY