The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed an appeal against the May 5, 2026 judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, which awarded N100 million in damages in favor of officials of the Department of State Services (DSS). SERAP described the ruling as a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.
Appeal and Stay of Execution
The appeal, filed by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) on behalf of SERAP, is accompanied by an application seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal. SERAP stated that the Notice of Appeal already filed would be amended upon receipt of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment to incorporate portions of the ruling it considers legally flawed. According to the organization, the appeal and accompanying application for stay of execution already filed and served provide adequate legal protection for the body.
Background of the Judgment
Justice Yusuf Halilu had, in the judgment delivered last week, ordered SERAP to pay N100 million in damages to DSS officials for alleged defamation, issue public apologies, pay N1 million in litigation costs, and 10 percent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until fully paid.
Legal Arguments in the Notice of Appeal
In its Notice of Appeal, SERAP argued that the decision rests on fundamental legal and evidential errors affecting jurisdiction and fairness in adjudication, insisting that the judgment is perverse and a nullity. The organization contended that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths, which it said ought to have been discountenanced.
SERAP is asking the Court of Appeal for an order allowing the appeal, setting aside the entire judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, and dismissing Suit No: CV/4547/2024 for lacking merit. The organization maintained that the case raises issues beyond the outcome of the suit, including whether a court can sustain proceedings founded on a defective originating process or impose liability where the legal thresholds for defamation have not been met.
According to SERAP, the judgment is legally defective, procedurally flawed, and unsupported by evidence, raising substantial questions regarding jurisdiction, defamation law, and constitutional and international fair trial standards. SERAP further argued that the lower court failed to apply the objective test in defamation law by relying on subjective perceptions within the DSS rather than the understanding of ordinary members of the public.
Part of the Notice of Appeal reads: “The lower court erred in law when it allowed the amendment of the Writ of Summons to substitute the name of a non-juristic person with a juristic person. An action commenced against a non-juristic person is fundamentally defective and does not constitute a misnomer which is capable of amendment. An amendment cannot cure a void originating process nor effect the substitution of a distinct juristic entity for a party that does not exist in law.”
Faulting the Court’s Findings
SERAP also faulted the court’s findings on identification in defamation, arguing that the publications complained of did not mention the claimants by name, rank, photograph, or any unique identifier. “The lower court erroneously relied on the subjective perception of the Respondents and their colleagues within the Department of State Services (the DSS),” the appeal stated.
The organization further challenged the admissibility of the first respondent’s witness statement, arguing that it was not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths. “The 1st Respondent admitted under cross-examination on 21st March 2025 that her witness statement on oath was signed in her lawyer’s chambers and not before the Commissioner for Oaths,” SERAP argued.
SERAP also maintained that the lower court failed to uphold its defenses of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment. According to the organization, evidence before the court showed that DSS officers made an unannounced visit, concealed their identities, and refused to present identification, conduct it said caused apprehension among its staff. “The lower court wrongly implied malice despite the absence of any evidence of malice on the part of SERAP. The lower court’s decision is perverse,” it added.
Damages and Locus Standi
The organization also faulted the damages awarded, arguing that the respondents failed to prove actual harm, reputational injury, or financial loss arising from the publications. It stated that no witness from the public testified that the publications referred personally to the claimants or lowered their reputation. SERAP further argued that the respondents lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action in their personal capacities, noting that the DSS is a large institution and the publications did not specifically identify the claimants.
Application for Stay of Execution
In its application for stay of execution, SERAP sought an order staying the execution or enforcement of the Orders made in the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, pending the final determination of the appeal. The organization also requested an injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the judgment pending the appeal.
SERAP argued that enforcing the judgment would severely disrupt its operations as Nigeria’s foremost accountability non-profit organization committed to the promotion of human rights, rule of law, transparency, and accountability in governance. “If this judgment is executed, it would potentially cripple SERAP’s operations. Consequently, SERAP will be unable to meet its financial obligations to its employees, consultants, vendors, and implementing partners,” the application stated.
The organization warned that ongoing program activities, including human rights interventions, investigations, and advocacy initiatives, could be abruptly halted, affecting communities and beneficiaries dependent on its work. SERAP said the case raises broader concerns about the protection of civic space and the ability of civil society organizations to operate without undue interference. “The enforcement of the judgment would deprive SERAP of its constitutional right of appeal, as it would be unable to adequately finance the prosecution of its appeal to the Court of Appeal,” the organization argued.
