The ₦100 million defamation judgment delivered against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sparked fresh legal debate over civic advocacy, defamation laws, and the rights of civil society organisations in Nigeria, following the group’s decision to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.
SERAP has filed a notice of appeal and an application for stay of execution after the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, ordered the organisation to pay ₦100 million in damages to two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) over alleged defamatory publications.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu on May 5, 2026, also directed SERAP to issue public apologies, pay ₦1 million as litigation costs, and pay a 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until full payment is made.
The suit, marked CV/4547/2024, was instituted by Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, both officials of the DSS.
In its appeal filed through senior lawyer Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP argued that the judgment was legally flawed and raised significant constitutional and public interest concerns relating to freedom of expression and civic advocacy in Nigeria.
According to the organisation, the case extends beyond the dispute between the parties and touches on broader questions regarding the ability of civil society organisations to carry out advocacy work without fear of crippling litigation.
SERAP maintained that the trial court relied on defective evidence and failed to properly apply established legal principles governing defamation cases.
One of the major grounds of appeal relates to the admissibility of a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths. SERAP argued that the court ought not to have relied on such evidence in reaching its decision.
The organisation also challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the suit was initially filed against a non-juristic entity and that such a defect could not legally be cured through amendment.
According to SERAP, the publications at the centre of the dispute did not specifically identify the DSS officials by name, rank, photograph, or any distinct personal description.
The organisation further argued that the court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the publications referred personally to the claimants.
SERAP maintained that defamation claims should be assessed from the perspective of ordinary members of the public rather than based on the internal interpretation of personnel within an institution.
The group also argued that the DSS itself had earlier acknowledged, through a pre-action letter, that the statements complained about were directed at the agency as an institution and not at individual officers.
Legal analysts say the appeal could become an important test case on the limits of defamation actions involving public institutions and their officials, especially where public interest advocacy is involved.
SERAP additionally faulted the trial court for allegedly failing to properly consider its defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment.
According to the organisation, it had presented evidence showing that DSS officers visited its office without prior notice, allegedly concealed their identities, and created apprehension among staff members.
The organisation insisted that its publication was made within the scope of public interest advocacy and civic engagement.
On the issue of damages, SERAP argued that the DSS officials did not provide evidence showing reputational damage, financial loss, disciplinary action, or any professional setback resulting from the publication.
The organisation further noted that no independent witness testified that the statements were understood to refer specifically to the claimants.
SERAP also questioned the legal standing of the DSS officials to institute the suit in their personal capacities while relying on internal institutional interpretation of the publication.
The organisation argued that members of large institutions cannot successfully maintain personal defamation claims unless the statements clearly and uniquely identify them.
Alongside the appeal, SERAP has asked the court to stay the execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
The organisation warned that immediate enforcement of the judgment could severely affect its operations, including ongoing investigations, advocacy projects, and support for victims of alleged human rights abuses.
According to SERAP, payment of the judgment sum could disrupt its obligations to staff, consultants, vendors, and development partners.
The organisation also argued that enforcing the judgment before the appeal is determined could undermine its constitutional right to appeal by limiting its financial ability to pursue the matter.
The case has continued to generate reactions within legal and civil society circles, with observers closely watching how the appellate court will address issues relating to defamation, institutional criticism, civic space, and the protection of public interest advocacy in Nigeria.
