The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has rejected a Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment awarding N100 million in damages to the Department of State Services and two of its officials in a defamation suit, describing the ruling as a dangerous precedent for civic freedom and pledging to challenge it immediately at the Court of Appeal.
Justice Yusuf Halilu, delivering judgment in the suit brought by DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, held that the claimants had successfully established the ingredients of defamation and were entitled to damages. Beyond the N100 million award, the judge ordered payment of N1 million in litigation costs, the publication of public apologies in two national newspapers and two national television stations including Arise News, and a 10 percent annual post-judgment interest until the full sum was paid.
SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, announced that senior lawyers Tayo Oyetibo SAN and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN had already been instructed to file an immediate appeal, describing the ruling as totally unacceptable and a serious blow to civic space in Nigeria.
The organization described the lawsuit as a textbook Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, alleging that the Tinubu administration was using defamation laws and state institutions to suppress dissent, intimidate activists, and weaken the civic space.
SERAP maintained that its September 2024 publication, which was the subject of the suit, was made in the public interest following what it described as an unlawful invasion and intimidation of its Abuja office by DSS operatives. The visit occurred after SERAP had called on the president to investigate alleged corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company and reverse fuel price increases.
The organization said its publication did not mention the personal names of the officials who brought the suit and therefore could not have damaged their individual reputations. It maintained that all statements were justified, lawful, and protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations. It warned that the judgment risked creating a chilling effect on anti-corruption advocacy, civic participation, and free speech across the country.
