Nollywood actor Emeka Ike has expressed disappointment after a Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed his ₦10 billion fundamental human rights suit against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Lere Olayinka, a senior aide to Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike.

Reacting shortly after the judgment, Ike questioned the meaning of fundamental human rights, arguing that people could experience alleged rights violations, online bullying and public embarrassment without securing the justice they seek in court.

The actor said he was dissatisfied with the outcome, particularly the court’s decision to dismiss his case despite his concerns about the alleged violation of his rights.

“It’s even crazy that your right will be violated and the judge will tell you it’s not a fundamental human right. Then what is a fundamental human right? The embarrassment, the bullying online,” Ike said.

The case centred on Ike’s allegations concerning the publication of his personal data in INEC’s database. He had sought ₦10 billion in damages, arguing that the actions of the electoral commission and Olayinka violated his fundamental rights.

However, Justice Salim Ibrahim, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, upheld preliminary objections filed by the respondents and ruled that the suit was incompetent and improperly constituted.

The court consequently dismissed the case.

The ruling means Ike’s claim for damages was unsuccessful at the Federal High Court. His reaction, however, indicates that he remains dissatisfied with the outcome and believes his concerns about the alleged violation of his rights deserved judicial consideration.

The case has also drawn attention to the distinction between allegations of personal harm and the legal requirements for establishing a fundamental human rights claim. A court must determine whether a case is properly brought and whether the facts and applicable law support the reliefs being sought.

Ike’s comments reflect his personal response to the judgment. The court’s decision, as reported, was based on the preliminary objections and the competence of the suit, rather than a general declaration that online bullying or the misuse of personal data can never amount to a violation of fundamental rights.