The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed an appeal challenging a ₦100 million defamation judgment delivered by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, describing the ruling as “a miscarriage of justice” and “legally defective.”
The appeal follows a judgment delivered on 5 May 2026 by Justice Yusuf Halilu, which ordered SERAP to pay ₦100 million in damages to officials of the Department of State Services (DSS), alongside ₦1 million in costs, a public apology, and a 10 percent annual post-judgment interest until full payment is made.
SERAP has also filed an application seeking a stay of execution, urging the court to suspend enforcement of the judgment pending the determination of its appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The case, filed by Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, on behalf of SERAP, argues that the lower court’s decision contains “fundamental legal and evidential errors” that render the judgment unsustainable.
SERAP Alleges Procedural and Legal Flaws
In its Notice of Appeal, SERAP contends that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement that was allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths.
The organisation also argued that the original suit was improperly instituted against a non-juristic entity before being amended to substitute the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP, which it claims cannot cure a fundamentally void originating process.
SERAP maintained that such procedural irregularities deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
It further argued that the court misapplied established principles of defamation law by relying on subjective perceptions within the DSS rather than the objective standard of how “right-thinking members of society” would interpret the alleged defamatory statements.
The organisation cited Supreme Court authorities, including Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd and Abalaka v. Akinsete, insisting that the proper legal test for identification in defamation cases was not met.
Dispute Over Evidence and Damages
SERAP also challenged the admissibility and credibility of key evidence relied upon by the court, particularly a witness statement allegedly signed outside the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths.
According to the appeal, the trial court erred by failing to discountenance the statement despite cross-examination admissions.
The group further argued that the claimants, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, failed to prove actual reputational damage, financial loss, or any public identification linking them personally to the publications in question.
SERAP insisted that no independent witnesses from the general public were called to confirm that the publications referred specifically to the DSS officials as individuals.
It also argued that the alleged defamatory content did not mention the claimants by name, rank, or unique identifier, and therefore could not sustain a personal defamation claim.
Defence of Public Interest Advocacy
SERAP maintained that its publications were made in the public interest and constituted fair comment, qualified privilege, and justification.
It argued that its statements were based on concerns over alleged conduct by DSS operatives during an unannounced visit, which it said raised legitimate accountability issues.
The organisation further contended that even if the statements were critical or exaggerated, they fell within the legal protection afforded to public-interest commentary.
SERAP also rejected any inference of malice, insisting that the lower court wrongly attributed improper intent without supporting evidence.
Concerns Over Organisational Impact
In its application for stay of execution, SERAP warned that enforcing the judgment could severely disrupt its operations as a civil society organisation focused on human rights and accountability.
It argued that payment of the ₦100 million damages could “cripple” its activities, affect staff salaries, halt ongoing programmes, and undermine its ability to pursue its constitutional right of appeal.
“The effect of the decision… will be severely disrupted, if not entirely shut down,” the organisation stated in its filing.
SERAP also stressed that many vulnerable communities and victims of human rights violations depend on its advocacy and legal interventions.
Broader Implications Raised
The organisation framed the case as one with wider implications for civic space in Nigeria, arguing that enforcement of the judgment without appellate review could weaken public-interest litigation and civil society accountability efforts.
It urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment in its entirety and dismiss the substantive suit for lacking merit, insisting that the trial court’s decision was “perverse and a nullity.”
