Justice Halilu Yusuf of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja has awarded N100 million in damages against the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). The judgment, delivered on Tuesday in suit number FCT/HC/CV/4547/24, stemmed from a defamation lawsuit filed by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS), Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, who accused SERAP of falsely alleging they invaded its Abuja office.

SERAP had, on September 9, 2024, published a series of posts on its X (formerly Twitter) handle, claiming that officers of Nigeria’s State Security Service (SSS) unlawfully occupied its office, demanded to see its directors, and that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's administration was enabling harassment and intimidation. The organization called for an immediate end to what it described as an attack on citizens' rights. The lawsuit against SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, by the DSS officials sought N5 billion in damages, N50 million in legal costs, a public apology, and a 10 percent annual interest on the judgment sum, arguing that SERAP's claims were false, injurious to their reputations, and led to professional consequences, including their suspension.

Justice Halilu ruled that the claimants successfully established that SERAP’s posts falsely portrayed them and the DSS in a damaging light. He faulted SERAP for failing to verify its claims before publishing them, emphasizing that advocacy organizations are not exempt from the legal consequences of defamatory statements. The judge stated that an organization promoting accountability must itself be accountable, and that the right to free expression does not override the rights of others to dignity and fair hearing. The court held that SERAP’s viral publication caused psychological and reputational harm, noting that libel is actionable once publication is established, without needing to prove specific damages. The defense of justification failed, as SERAP did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that DSS operatives invaded or harassed its office as alleged. While the claimants demanded N5 billion, the court awarded N100 million, deeming it adequate, alongside N1 million in litigation costs and a 10 percent annual interest on the damages until full payment.

The court further ordered SERAP to issue a public apology to the two operatives, to be published in two national newspapers (including The Punch and Vanguard), broadcast on two television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television), and also published on its website and X handle. All preliminary objections filed by the defendants were dismissed as lacking merit, with the court reaffirming that the elements of libel — publication, identification, defamatory meaning, and absence of justification — were sufficiently proven.

In response, SERAP rejected the judgment, describing it as “seriously flawed,” “totally unacceptable,” a “travesty,” and a “serious blow to civic space in Nigeria.” The organization called it a troubling pattern under President Tinubu’s government of using defamation laws to punish legitimate criticism and suppress accountability, labeling the case as judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). SERAP announced that it has instructed its lawyers, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, to immediately appeal the judgment, asserting that it fails to reflect the evidence presented and disregards Nigeria’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations. The group warned that the judgment sends a dangerous message and creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression, civic participation, and anti-corruption work.

SERAP reiterated its allegations, insisting that DSS officials used false identities and unmarked vehicles during the alleged invasion. As a key part of its defense, SERAP highlighted that one of the DSS officials signed the visitor’s book as ‘Sarah David’ and not ‘Sarah John’, suggesting identity concealment. The organization also maintained that the operation was intimidating and irregular, with DSS officials demanding to see management staff and documents, and interrogating its front desk officer. SERAP argued that its initial publication was directed at the DSS as an institution, not individual officers, given the agency's record of alleged harassment of civil society actors. They noted that the DSS arrived with multiple vehicles and without prior official notification, which is inconsistent with standard engagement procedures. SERAP further referenced prior correspondence where the DSS, through its solicitor Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), initially stated that SERAP’s publication concerned the DSS itself, not the two individual officials, a demand that SERAP’s solicitors, Messrs Tayo Oyetibo LP, had rejected before the lawsuit emerged.