The battle over the ₦100 million defamation judgment against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) is set to resume on Friday, as the rights group challenges the ruling by a Federal Capital Territory High Court at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
SERAP is asking the appellate court to overturn the judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu on May 5, 2026, which awarded ₦100 million in damages against the organisation in a suit instituted by two officers of the Department of State Services (DSS), also known as the State Security Service (SSS).
The appeal challenges the finding of liability, the damages awarded and the consequential orders, including the directive compelling SERAP to publish an apology.
In its 24-ground appeal, filed through its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, the organisation argued that the trial court failed to establish that the publications complained of specifically identified the two officers.
SERAP maintained that neither publication mentioned the officers by name, rank, designation, office or photograph, arguing that the physical descriptions used were too general to establish that the reports referred to the claimants.
“The central issue in this appeal is whether the respondents established by credible evidence that the publications complained of referred to them,” the organisation said in its brief of argument dated September 3, 2026.
The group also faulted the evidential basis for the damages awarded, describing the decision as excessive and arbitrary.
According to SERAP, the claim that the publications caused the officers mental, psychological and reputational harm was not supported by sufficient independent evidence establishing specific professional, financial or reputational injury.
It further argued that no independent witness testified that members of the public had read the publications and understood them to refer specifically to the two officers.
SERAP also challenged the trial court’s reliance on its own observation of the officers’ physical appearance in court, insisting that the claimants had the responsibility to establish that readers could identify them from the publications when they were made.
Dispute over DSS visit
The suit arose from publications made by SERAP on September 9, 2024, alleging that DSS officers had unlawfully entered its Abuja office.
The publications followed the organisation’s call on President Bola Tinubu to investigate allegations of corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and reverse increases in fuel prices.
SERAP’s reports referred to the security personnel as officers of the SSS/DSS and included physical descriptions of a tall, large, dark-skinned woman and a slim, dark-skinned man.
The two officers subsequently instituted the defamation suit against the organisation.
However, SERAP argued in its appeal that its publications addressed the conduct of public security officials and constituted commentary on a matter of legitimate public interest.
It maintained that the reports should be read in their entirety and within the context of the events surrounding the officers’ visit to its office, rather than through isolated words such as “invasion”, “harassment”, “intimidation” and “unlawful”.
The organisation further argued that disagreement with its account of events did not, in itself, establish defamation, insisting that the claimants had not sufficiently demonstrated that the substance of the publications was false.
Questions court’s handling of evidence
Beyond the question of identification, SERAP raised procedural and evidential issues in its appeal.
The organisation challenged the competence of the original suit, arguing that it was initially instituted against SERAP, which it described as a non-juristic entity, before the claimants amended the originating process to substitute the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP.
It contended that the amendment could not cure what it considered a fundamental defect in the original proceedings.
SERAP also questioned the validity of the first respondent’s witness statement on oath, arguing that the statement was signed at her lawyers’ chambers rather than before a Commissioner for Oaths.
According to the organisation, the subsequent adoption of the statement in court could not cure an alleged defect in the process of administering the oath.
The group further argued that the trial court failed to properly consider its available defences, including justification, qualified privilege and the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
Citing Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, SERAP said civil society organisations must be able to scrutinise public institutions and speak on issues affecting human rights, accountability and the rule of law.
It maintained that public officials, including security operatives, were not immune from legitimate criticism concerning the performance of their official duties.
SERAP, however, acknowledged the need to balance freedom of expression with the protection of individual reputation, arguing that liability must be based on evidence establishing the essential elements of defamation.
The organisation urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment, the ₦100 million damages award and the consequential orders.
It said it remained committed to lawful advocacy on human rights and accountability, adding that civil society organisations should be able to scrutinise public institutions without facing disproportionate legal consequences.
The appellate court’s decision will determine whether the trial court’s findings and the damages awarded against SERAP will stand.
