This, plus it raises all sorts of other questions that aren’t conducive to a healthy working environment. Say a CEO has a consensual affair with the general counsel of the company, or the director of marketing, or head of HR, or what have you. Suddenly now there’s a question as to whether the CEO played favorites as part of that relationship, or whether the other person felt comfortable pushing back on the CEO in terms of business decisions, etc.If you're the head coach, you're not allowed to bang people in the organization, full stop. The head coach has sufficient power that any "consensual" relationship will have a problematic power dynamic, legally.
If the other person in Ime’s relationship wasn’t a direct or indirect report to him, that lessens those concerns somewhat, but companies generally have strict bans on this kind of thing so that they don’t have to get into judgment calls on how “bad” the relationship was.
And putting aside the competitive aspects of this, I think it makes a ton of sense to punish Ime harshly for this - if there was any internal sense that Ime got off easy for this that could piss off other, lower-level staffers or suggest the rules as a whole aren’t enforced as written.
Put another way, the reason companies have policies like this, even putting aside the legitimate concerns about power imbalances, is because these situations always create major disruptions within the organization, as we are clearly seeing here.