SERAP rejects High Court ruling to award N100m to DSS officials in defamation suit

Wednesday, May 6, 2026 - The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has rejected what it described as the “seriously flawed judgment” of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, in the N5.5bn defamation lawsuit filed against the organisation by two officials of the Department of State Services.

Similarly, one of the lawyers in the suit, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, criticised the judgment for not reflecting the legal arguments canvassed, especially on the legal status of the DSS as to whether the agency established by law is DSS or SSS.

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, on Tuesday, in a judgment in suit number FCT/HC/CV/4547/24 instituted by Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, both officials of the DSS, ordered SERAP to pay N100m in damages to the officials for alleged defamation.

The court also directed the organisation to issue public apologies, pay N1m in litigation costs, and 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until fully paid.

Reacting, SERAP, in a statement signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, described the judgment as totally unacceptable, a travesty and a serious blow to civic space in Nigeria.

It added that the judgment reflected a troubling pattern under the government of President Bola Tinubu of using defamation laws to punish legitimate criticism and suppress accountability.

The organisation also disclosed that it would immediately proceed to appeal the judgment.

SERAP said, “We have instructed our lawyers, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN), to immediately appeal this judgment.”

The statement further read, “This case represents a textbook example of judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), designed to intimidate civil society and deter legitimate human rights advocacy.

“The Tinubu government is misusing both the DSS and the judicial system to target activists, journalists, and ordinary Nigerians who are peacefully exercising their fundamental human rights.

“Rather than deploying state institutions to intimidate critics, the government should be protecting those working to expose corruption, including allegations involving the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.”

SERAP, strongly making its position known that it would not accept the decision of the trial court, said, “We strongly disagree with the judgment, which fails to reflect the evidence presented before the court and disregards Nigeria’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.

“This judgment sends a dangerous message and creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression, civic participation, and anti-corruption work.

“Strategic lawsuits against public participation undermine the rule of law by diverting judicial processes from their proper purpose—justice—to repression.”

SERAP further noted that courts have a duty to prevent the misuse of legal proceedings and to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and association.

The organisation said the judgment raised serious concerns regarding compliance with international human rights law, adding that judicial authorities must ensure that defamation laws were not weaponised to silence dissent or suppress legitimate advocacy.

“We are committed to pursuing all available legal avenues, including appeal, to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that fundamental rights are protected.

“We stand resolute. We will continue to defend civic space, promote transparency, and advance accountability in Nigeria.

“Our work, particularly in promoting transparency, challenging corruption, and addressing illicit financial flows, is carried out in the public interest and in accordance with the law.

“The Tinubu government has continued to fail to investigate the allegations of corruption our organisation raised against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited,” it said.

SERAP called on the Nigerian authorities to uphold their constitutional and international human rights obligations, including the duty to protect human rights defenders and ensure that security agencies operate lawfully, transparently, and accountably.

Reacting to the judgment, Amnesty International Nigeria described the ruling as “a dangerous blow to free expression and civic space.”

In a statement on Tuesday, the organisation expressed “grave concern” over the judgment, warning that it could have a chilling effect on civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders.

Amnesty International Nigeria Director, Isa Sanusi, said, “This judgment sends a deeply troubling signal about the state of civic space in Nigeria.

“The judgment appears to depart from these principles and may embolden further use of SLAPPs against civil society actors in Nigeria.

“Such developments risk weakening public oversight, discouraging whistleblowing, and undermining efforts to combat corruption and illicit financial flows.”

The organisation said the use of defamation laws in the case appeared inconsistent with international human rights standards and urged Nigerian authorities to quash the judgment.

“Authorities must stop using judicial harassment as a tool to silence critics, activists and other Nigerians solely for the peaceful exercise of their human rights,” it said.

Amnesty International also recalled that Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

Adegboruwa, on his part, added that the court did not consider the case of SERAP as to whether public officers working in public institutions can sue for defamation on behalf of their organisations in respect of an alleged wrong done to their agency in the course of discharge of their official duties.

He said, “Whereas the plaintiffs stated before the court that they are still under investigation by their employers to determine the propriety of their conduct in the SERAP office, the judge proceeded to adjudge SERAP guilty of libel without actual proof of the identity of the persons allegedly defamed.”

“In all cases, damages for libel should be commensurate with the status and earnings of the plaintiff. In this case, public officers of DSS who did not even establish their ranks or salary scales before the court were awarded N100m as a bazaar! How much is their monthly salary?

“The inconsistency and irony of this case is that the plaintiffs were sent on assignment with public funds, and they turned around to sue to claim private damages from their public engagements. Now, who collects the damages, is it the plaintiffs or their employers?”

The senior counsel also faulted the decision of the court to award interest at 10 per cent on the damages when it was not a contract, and no case for interest was proved by the plaintiffs before the court.

“It is a strange judgment that has no precedence, and it is very dangerous for our democracy, as it can be used to silence NGOs. We are taking immediate steps to appeal this judgment,” he added.

The lawsuit arose after SERAP, on September 9, 2024, alleged that DSS officials unlawfully entered its Abuja office following the organisation’s call on President Tinubu to investigate corruption allegations in NNPCL and reverse fuel price increases.

In its defence, SERAP maintained: “SERAP vehemently denies the claims by the DSS and its officials and at the trial shall urge the court to dismiss the claims in their entirety for being frivolous and vexatious, with substantial costs in favour of SERAP.”

The organisation also questioned the identity of one of the claimants, stating, “One of the two DSS officials who entered SERAP’s office signed the visitor’s book as ‘Sarah David’ and not ‘Sarah John’ as constituted in this suit.”

SERAP alleged that the officials demanded documents and interrogated its staff, insisting that its publication was directed at the DSS as an institution and not the individual claimants.

It further stated that correspondence exchanged between both parties showed that the DSS initially complained about the publication as relating to the agency, not the officials, adding, “It was after the exchange of correspondence between the DSS and SERAP that the two DSS officials instituted this suit based upon false facts that the publication was made of and concerning them.”

The organisation also accused the DSS of giving conflicting reasons for the visit, noting, “The DSS has made contradictory statements as to the purpose of their unannounced visit and presence in SERAP’s Abuja office.”

SERAP maintained that the officials’ actions caused fear among its staff, describing them as “harassment, intimidation, and ill-treatment.”

However, in his judgment, Justice Yusuf Halilu held that the case was one of libel and outlined the legal requirements for proving defamation, including publication, identification, and defamatory meaning.

He ruled that the claimants were identifiable through the description in SERAP’s publication, noting that a third-party witness linked the description to them.

The judge held that the publication portrayed the officials as acting unlawfully and unprofessionally, thereby injuring their reputation, adding that such imputations exposed them to “hatred, opprobrium, odium, contempt, or ridicule.”