A coalition of 52 Nigerian civil society organizations, human rights advocates, and public interest groups has voiced profound concerns over growing threats to judicial transparency, civic freedoms, and constitutional governance in Nigeria. These concerns stem from a controversial defamation judgment delivered by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja on May 5, which awarded N100 million in damages against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to compensate two operatives of the State Security Service (SSS), Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, for defamation. The judgment also mandated SERAP to issue public apologies, pay N1 million in costs, and accrue a 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest. SERAP immediately rejected the ruling as a "travesty" and "dangerous precedent" and filed an appeal on May 8.

The coalition, which includes prominent groups such as Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT Foundation, and Yiaga Africa, highlighted several critical issues surrounding the case. A primary concern is the reported delay in the release of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment. The groups emphasized that timely access to court judgments is central to fair hearing, transparency, and effective appellate review, particularly in cases involving significant constitutional issues. They warned that such delays undermine the constitutional right of affected parties to appeal and weaken public confidence in the judiciary. Without the CTC, litigants are hampered from properly evaluating their legal position, pursuing informed appellate review, or responding responsibly in the public domain.

Beyond the specific case, the civil society groups expressed alarm over the increasing use of defamation suits, coercive legal measures, and institutional intimidation against anti-corruption advocacy and public accountability work. They stressed that democratic societies rely on the ability of civil society organizations to question authority, scrutinize public institutions, and engage in robust public-interest advocacy without fear of disproportionate retaliation. The coalition firmly stated that the constitutional right of appeal is an integral part of the justice system and should not be construed as contempt for the judiciary or disobedience to the rule of law, warning that such interpretations risk weakening constitutional safeguards and discouraging legitimate legal recourse.

SERAP, for its part, described the court's decision as "a textbook example of judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)." The organization contended that the action reflects a broader pattern of using defamation laws and state institutions to suppress dissent and weaken civic space. SERAP's allegedly defamatory publication in September 2024 concerned alleged conduct of the SSS following an alleged unlawful invasion and intimidation of its Abuja office. This incident occurred after SERAP had called for investigations into alleged corruption within the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and fuel price increases. SERAP argued in its defense that SSS officials interrogated staff, demanded documents, and sought leadership information, while unmarked vehicles were stationed outside its premises. Furthermore, SERAP maintained that its publication did not personally identify the SSS officials and therefore could not sustain a claim for personal defamation, asserting that its statements were made in the public interest and protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and international human rights obligations.

The coalition underscored its arguments by citing fundamental legal principles. They referenced Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees every citizen a fair hearing, emphasizing that transparency and access to court judgments are essential components of this guarantee. They also invoked Section 39(1) of the Constitution, protecting freedom of expression, and Section 22, which tasks the media and civic actors with government accountability. Internationally, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights were cited, both reinforcing protections for freedom of expression and access to information. The groups recalled the Supreme Court of Nigeria's consistent affirmation that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," highlighting these principles as central to judicial legitimacy and democratic governance.

In light of these concerns, the coalition issued a series of demands: the immediate release of the Certified True Copy of the judgment; stronger respect for fair hearing and freedom of expression; greater institutional restraint in public commentary on ongoing judicial matters where official records are not yet available; stronger protection of civic space and public-interest advocacy; and a renewed commitment by Nigerian institutions to constitutionalism, democratic accountability, and human rights standards. The 52 signatory organizations collectively asserted that Nigeria's democracy hinges on the preservation of civic freedom, judicial integrity, procedural fairness, and the rule of law.