Veteran journalist and lawyer Richard Akinnola has faulted a faction of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) that criticized the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) over a defamation judgment involving officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice Halilu Yusuf had ordered SERAP to pay N100 million as litigation costs to DSS operatives Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, and to publish an apology in two national newspapers, two television stations, as well as on its website and X (formerly Twitter) handle.
Following the outrage that trailed the judgment, CDHR urged SERAP to comply. The group also stated that public commentary on court decisions should be guided by restraint and respect for due process. In a statement by its President, Debo Adeniran, the group emphasized that while criticism is a constitutional right, it should be expressed responsibly.
Reacting, Akinnola described as “embarrassingly shocking” the position of the CDHR faction led by Adeniran and Publicity Secretary Jeremiah Onyibe, for asking SERAP to immediately comply with the High Court judgment despite the organization’s indication that it would appeal the ruling after obtaining the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment.
Akinnola said he was compelled to respond publicly because the CDHR faction had chosen to issue its criticism in the public domain. “I never knew a day like this would come when notable activists who had been in the struggle over the years would be publicly supporting a security agency against a member of their constituency,” he said.
The lawyer raised three questions for Adeniran and his faction, citing historical and legal precedents. He referenced the 1989 defamation case involving late legal icon Gani Fawehinmi, who was ordered by a Lagos High Court to pay damages to former military intelligence chiefs Haliru Akilu and Kunle Togun. According to Akinnola, Fawehinmi successfully challenged the judgment on appeal, questioning why Adeniran did not similarly call for immediate compliance at the time.
Akinnola also queried why the CDHR faction had not publicly demanded compliance with several judgments previously secured by SERAP against the Federal Government, which remain unenforced. He further cited the 2017 arbitration award of $6.6 billion against Nigeria in the Process and Industrial Developments arbitration dispute case, noting that the Federal Government appealed the ruling and eventually succeeded in overturning it in 2023.
Drawing parallels with Nigeria’s military era, Akinnola recalled the clampdown on the press during the administrations of former military rulers Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha. He also referenced the controversial Decree No. 4 of 1984 under the regime of former Head of State Muhammadu Buhari, noting that some journalists supported the decree while others resisted it.
Femi Falana (SAN) also weighed in on the controversy, accusing Adeniran of misrepresenting the circumstances surrounding the Fawehinmi case. In a statement addressed to Adeniran, Falana said the late Fawehinmi never paid the N6 million damages awarded against him in the libel suits filed by Akilu and Togun. “The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) never paid the N6 million damages awarded against him in the libel suits of Col Kunle Togun and Col Halilu Akilu,” Falana stated.
According to him, Fawehinmi rejected the judgment and described the proceedings as “awada kerikeri” before proceeding to exercise his constitutional right of appeal, which he eventually won. Falana explained that the proposal by late activist Tai Solarin to raise funds for payment of the damages was merely a political statement, adding that the money raised was domiciled in a bank and never paid to the claimants.
Falana argued that Adeniran’s intervention in the SERAP matter was unnecessary, noting that the organization had already briefed senior lawyers, including Tayo Oyetibo, to challenge the judgment on appeal. “You asked SERAP to pay the N100 million damages to the State Security Service. Are you suggesting that SERAP should forfeit its right of appeal against the judgment?” Falana queried.
The senior advocate further maintained that filing an appeal against a judgment does not amount to disobedience of court orders. “An aggrieved party has the unquestionable right to file an appeal against the judgment of a court. SERAP cannot be excoriated for appealing against the SSS judgment,” he added.
