Defamation: SERAP rejects judgement, heads to Appeal Court

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has rejected today’s judgement delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, sitting in Maitama, Abuja, which awarded N100 million in damages against the organisation in a defamation suit filed by two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).

The civil society organisation described the court’s decision as “a travesty” and “a dangerous precedent” for civic freedom in Nigeria.

Delivering judgment in the suit, marked FCT/HC/CV/4547/24 and instituted by DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele against SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, Justice Halilu ordered the organisation to pay N100 million in damages to the claimants, N1 million as litigation costs, and 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest until the sum is fully liquidated.

The court also ordered SERAP to issue public apologies on its X (formerly Twitter) handle, in two national newspapers, and on two national television stations, Arise News and Channels TV.

Reacting to the judgment in a statement signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, and made available to Tribune Online, SERAP rejected the ruling, stating that it had instructed its senior lawyers, Tayo Oyetibo and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, to immediately file an appeal at the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision.

Describing the case as “a textbook example of judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)”, SERAP alleged that the Tinubu administration was using defamation laws and state institutions to suppress dissent, intimidate activists, and weaken civic space.

According to the organisation, “This judgment is totally unacceptable to us. It is a serious blow to civic space in Nigeria and reflects a troubling pattern of using defamation laws to punish legitimate criticism and suppress accountability.”

SERAP insisted that its 9 September 2024 publication concerning the DSS was made in the public interest, following what it described as an unlawful invasion and intimidation of its Abuja office by DSS operatives after it called on President Bola Tinubu to investigate alleged corruption in the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and reverse fuel price increases.

The statement added that, in its defence before the court, SERAP maintained that the DSS officials who visited its office interrogated staff members, demanded incorporation documents, questioned the organisation’s internal structure, and sought information about its leadership and anti-corruption advocacy activities.

SERAP further alleged that unmarked vehicles carrying DSS operatives were stationed outside its office during the encounter, creating fear among staff members who believed an arrest or raid was imminent.

The organisation also accused the DSS of giving conflicting explanations regarding the purpose of the visit, pointing to its earlier public statement in which it described the operation as a “routine investigation”, contrary to its claims in court that the visit was merely for a familiarisation meeting with SERAP’s leadership.

The CSO argued that the alleged defamatory publication did not mention the names of the DSS officials who instituted the suit and therefore could not have damaged their personal reputations.

It further maintained that its statements were justified, lawful, and protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and international human rights obligations binding on Nigeria.

Warning of the wider implications of the judgment, SERAP stated that the decision could create a “chilling effect” on anti-corruption work, civic participation, and free speech, adding that courts must guard against the misuse of defamation laws to stifle legitimate advocacy and public accountability.

Also reacting, one of the CSO’s lawyers, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN), said the judgment did not reflect the legal arguments canvassed in the case, particularly regarding the legal status of the DSS and whether public officers could sue for defamation on behalf of their institutions.

He noted that despite the claimants informing the court that they were under investigation by the Service, the court still found SERAP liable for libel.

According to Adegboruwa, “Whereas the plaintiffs stated before the court that they are still under investigation by their employers to determine the propriety of their conduct in SERAP’s 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 establish their ranks or salary scales before the court were awarded N100 million. 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 then turned around to sue for private damages arising from their public engagements. Now, who receives the damages—is it the plaintiffs or their employers?”

He added that the award of 10 per cent interest was improper, as it was neither a contractual matter nor supported by evidence presented before the court.

“It is a strange judgment with no precedent, 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 said.