A recent judgment by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay N100 million in damages to two Department of State Security (DSS) officials—Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele—for defamation. The court also directed SERAP to publish public apologies, pay N1 million as litigation costs, and incur 10 per cent yearly post-judgment interest until the damages are fully paid. This ruling has ignited one of the most intense debates within Nigeria’s civil society in recent years.
Background of the case
On September 9, 2024, SERAP alleged that DSS operatives visited its Abuja office without prior notice and questioned staff members. The organisation expressed concerns that the visit amounted to intimidation and harassment, given its advocacy work on corruption and governance. The DSS denied wrongdoing and conducted an internal review. Two officials involved, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, filed a defamation suit in their personal capacities, arguing that SERAP's publications falsely portrayed them and damaged their reputations. The trial culminated in the judgment against SERAP.
For the DSS officials, the ruling represented judicial vindication. However, many civil society actors see it as raising questions about the protection of civil society organisations when commenting on state institutions, the balance between reputational rights and freedom of expression, and whether large monetary awards can discourage legitimate advocacy.
SERAP files appeal
Dissatisfied with the decision, SERAP has approached the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment. Represented by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), the organisation describes the decision as “a travesty and miscarriage of justice.” The appeal challenges the judgment on several grounds, including that the original suit was defective because it was filed against a non-juristic entity, and that the alleged defamatory publications did not mention the officials by name or contain identifying details. SERAP also argues that its publications were protected by defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, as they concerned matters of public interest involving a state security agency.
SERAP stated: “The judgment is legally defective, procedurally flawed, and unsupported by evidence, raising substantial questions of jurisdiction, defamation law, and constitutional and international fair trial standards.” The group also applied for a stay of execution, arguing that enforcement would severely disrupt its operations and deprive it of the right to appeal.
Divided reactions from human rights community
The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) initially urged SERAP to comply with the court orders, arguing that democracy depends on respect for judicial decisions. However, a faction led by National President Yinka Folarin distanced itself from that statement, insisting that SERAP's right to appeal must be respected. Senior lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) supported SERAP's right to appeal, citing historical precedent involving Gani Fawehinmi, who successfully overturned a defamation judgment on appeal.
The Centre Against Injustice and Domestic Violence (CAIDOV) defended the court's decision, arguing that human rights organisations must be held accountable. Youth groups also urged restraint and respect for judicial authority. Veteran journalist Richard Akinnola questioned why some activists demanded immediate compliance while ignoring the right to appeal, noting that even governments challenge adverse judgments through appeals.
Broader concerns
Over 50 civil society organisations, including Amnesty International Nigeria, ActionAid Nigeria, and BudgIT Foundation, issued a joint statement expressing concern about the implications of the case. They cautioned against the use of defamation actions to discourage anti-corruption advocacy and called for protection of civic space. The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) described the judgment as anti-democratic and dangerous for freedom of expression, warning of a chilling effect on activism.
Amnesty International described the ruling as deeply troubling and warned of a potential chilling effect on civil society. It urged Nigerian authorities to quash the judgment and end judicial harassment. Former National Human Rights Commission Chairman Prof Chidi Odinkalu argued that the facts did not support a defamation claim, calling the judgment fundamentally flawed.
