Banner Online News

By Pius Mordi

Lere Olayinka, media aide to Nyesom Wike, President Bola Tinubu’s FCT Minister, is a knowledgeable and well informed journalist. He knows about the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024. He knows the essentials of the law and the fact that some persons have been convicted under its numerous provisions. Under the the Act, penalties for cyber offenses in Nigeria range from two years to life imprisonment, alongside substantial fines. The law targets both direct perpetrators and complicit individuals or platform administrators.
Unauthorised access to vital state secrets or classified information can result, on conviction, to 15 years imprisonment while intentionally accessing computer systems to obtain data vital to national security carries up to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to ₦5 million, or both.
Olayinka knows about these provisions in the Act, just as the officer of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with authorised access to restricted files. Their objective was not to bring information that would be of huge public interest or uphold public good. Rather, it was for mundane political purposes. Emeka Ike who said he resides in Abuja had transferred his voting point from his native Imo State to Abuja. It emerged that the Nollywood actor was vying for election to the House of Representatives in Abuja where he resides. It seemed absolutely normal and legal.
Not to Lere Olayinka. It was so disagreeable to him that he activated his access to INEC’s Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) database. He subsequently obtained Ike’s details on the voter register and shared the screenshots showing his personal voter details on his social media handle. And he made a cryptic comment to the post, saying
“Emeka Ike was a registered voter in Imo State. He only transferred his INEC registration to the FCT on May 15, 2026. And he wants to contest for House of Reps in Abuja,” Olayinka posted on X.
“Someone who has never voted in the FCT o. What happened to his Imo State?” Ike is said to be running on the platform of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), one of the opposition parties. To Olayinka, that was the “crime.”

Knowing the dynamics of the Cybercrime Act and the sanctions contravening the law attracts, what inspired Olayinka to proceed with his action? As a good student of leadership, Olayinka has seen enough of leadership and the application of the rule of law. Working closely with his boss, he must have assumed, probably rightly, that some persons in the corridors of power can afford to engage in acts of impunity with no repercussions.
Impunity is the exemption from punishment or consequences for one’s actions. It represents the breakdown of the rule of law and the ultimate shield for systemic corruption, authoritarianism, and human rights violations. When perpetrators face no repercussions, it creates a feedback loop. Impunity becomes the vehicle that enables continued abuse and emboldens wrongdoers.
It destroys citizens’ faith in legal and political institutions. When justice is inaccessible, it signals that the powerful are above the law, creating profound inequality. Impunity is arguably the most potent tool of dictators and corrupt elites. It allows them to suppress opposition, control resources, and exclude others from opportunities with zero fear of consequences.

Although, Olayinka has been rather off the radar since the Emeka Ike episode, it may have been strategic. Lie low, stay quiet and some other issues will come up and knock the episode out of public consciousness. Something is always happening to upstage previous developments.
In its reaction to the uproar created by Olayinka’s blatant action, INEC duly acknowledged the incident with its spokesman, Mohammed Haruna, saying that “audit trails so far indicate that there was no external breach of the CVR database, no hacking incident, and no unauthorised external access to the Commission’s ICT infrastructure.” Haruna described the action of the electoral officer who enabled the breach as “overzealousness”, that investigations showed the official had not met with Mr Olayinka in person before.
Coming against the backdrop of the concern on the integrity of INEC’s digital infrastructure generated by Olayinka’s actions, tackling this issue involves both pushing back against the culture of silence that allows “small” wrongs to go unchecked, and building robust institutions that enforce the law equally -no matter who is involved – should be seen to be upheld.

Gradually, the electoral umpire is getting enmeshed in series of mishaps that are steadily impinging on its public perception. With the controversies generated by INEC chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan’s social media post before his appointment and his interpretation of the “status quo ante bellum” episode, INEC should not trifle with the potential impact on the confidence of voters on its integrity and independence.