Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, recently ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay N100 million in damages to the Department of State Security (DSS) officials—Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele for defamation. The court also directed the organisation to publish public apologies, pay N1 million as litigation costs, and continue to incur 10 per cent yearly post-judgment interest until the damages are fully paid. JOSEPH ONYEKWERE reports that the judgment has triggered one of the fiercest debates within Nigeria’s civil society in recent years.

FOR decades, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Nigeria have frequently found themselves in confrontation with state institutions over issues ranging from corruption and human rights abuses to electoral accountability and misuse of public resources.

During military rule, many activists and journalists were detained, harassed or prosecuted for criticising government policies or exposing alleged abuses of power.

Although Nigeria’s return to democratic governance in 1999 ushered in broader constitutional protections for civic participation and freedom of expression, tensions between civic actors and state institutions never completely disappeared.

This is mirrored in the case concerning the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Department of State Services (DSS).

There are concerns that while the judgment settled one phase of the legal battle, it immediately opened another front: a wider national argument over law, rights, power, and accountability, with many arguing that such a decision could stifle the quest for accountability and shrink civic space.

The fact of the case was that SERAP, on September 9, 2024, alleged that DSS operatives visited its Abuja office without prior notice and questioned members of staff. The organisation expressed concerns that the visit amounted to intimidation and harassment, especially given its advocacy work on corruption and governance issues. The DSS subsequently denied wrongdoing and conducted an internal review of the incident.

Two officials involved in the visit, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, filed a defamation action in their personal capacities, arguing that SERAP’s publications falsely portrayed them and damaged their reputations.

The matter proceeded to trial and culminated in judgment against the organisation. For the DSS officials, the ruling represented judicial vindication.

But for many civil society actors, it immediately raised questions extending far beyond the specific facts of the case. At one level, the dispute concerns whether specific publications defamed two DSS officials.

At another level, it has become a referendum on broader questions: how much protection should civil society organisations enjoy when commenting on the actions of state institutions? How should courts balance reputational rights against freedom of expression?

Can large monetary awards discourage legitimate advocacy? What constitutes responsible activism in an age of instant public communication? And where should the line be drawn between criticism and defamation? These questions explain why the case has attracted such intense attention.

SERAP files appeal
Dissatisfied by the decision, SERAP, according to its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, has already approached the Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the entire judgment.

Represented by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), the organisation describes the decision as “a travesty and miscarriage of justice.” The appeal challenges virtually every major aspect of the judgment.

Among its arguments is the claim that the original suit was fundamentally defective because it was initially filed against “Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project,” which SERAP argues is not a juristic person recognised by law. According to the organisation, the claimants later amended the process to substitute “The Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project.”

SERAP maintains that such an amendment could not cure what it considers a jurisdictional defect. The appeal also attacks the court’s findings on identification, arguing that the alleged defamatory publications neither mentioned the DSS officials by name nor contained photographs, ranks, or unique descriptions capable of linking the statements specifically to them.

SERAP further argues that the trial court relied on a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths, despite an admission made during cross-examination.

The organisation additionally insists that its publications were protected by the legal defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, stressing that the statements concerned matters of public interest involving a state security agency.

SERAP said: “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 court failed to apply the well-established objective test in defamation law, relying instead on subjective perceptions within the DSS rather than the understanding of ordinary members of the public.”

In addition, the group applied for a stay of execution of the judgment. Its application for a stay reads in part: “The effect of the decision of the court is that the operations of SERAP, Nigeria’s foremost accountability non-profit organisation committed to the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability in governance, will be severely disrupted, if not entirely shut down. If this judgment is executed, it would potentially cripple SERAP’s operations…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 balance of convenience is in favour of granting this application and/or making the injunctive order sought.”
Discordant tunes from human rights community

Shortly after the ruling, the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), through a statement attributed to its President and Board Secretary, Debo Adeniran, and National Publicity Secretary, Jeremiah Onyibe, urged SERAP to comply with the court’s orders.

The group argued that democracy depends on respect for judicial decisions and that freedom of expression must be exercised responsibly. According to the statement, advocacy organisations are not exempt from accountability when courts determine that their conduct violates the rights of others.

The intervention immediately generated controversy. Within days, another faction of CDHR publicly distanced itself from the statement. Led by National President Yinka Folarin and General Secretary Idris Olayinka, the group declared that the statement attacking SERAP was unauthorised and did not represent the organisation’s official position.

The rival leadership accused the authors of acting outside recognised structures and insisted that SERAP’s constitutional right of appeal must be respected. The faction stressed that criticism of court judgments and recourse to appellate review are essential elements of constitutional democracy.

The statement reads in part: “Any attempt to portray SERAP’s exercise of its constitutional right of appeal as contemptuous, unlawful, or irresponsible is misleading, legally defective, and contrary to democratic norms.

“The CDHR therefore stands firmly by the clarification and principled position already expressed by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the organisation, Femi Falana (SAN), affirming that SERAP’s right of appeal subsists and must be respected by all parties.

“We also consider it necessary to caution the broader human rights movement to be wary of characters and tendencies working against our collective principles, solidarity, and shared ideological commitments.”

In his reaction, Falana (SAN) faulted CDHR’s position, insisting that SERAP is fully within its rights to challenge the ruling. He said: “Contrary to your curious position, filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance 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.”

Falana cited historical precedent involving Gani Fawehinmi, noting that the late legal icon never paid damages awarded in a defamation case involving senior military officers because he successfully appealed the judgments.

“The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) never paid the N6 million damages. Gani repudiated the judgment and exercised his constitutional right of appeal, which he eventually won.”

He dismissed suggestions that SERAP should be compelled to pay before exhausting its legal options.

But the Centre Against Injustice and Domestic Violence (CAIDOV) defended the decision of the court and criticised SERAP’s response. Its Executive Director, Gbenga Soloki, argued that human rights organisations should be held to the same standards they demand from others.

The group maintained that freedom of expression does not include the right to damage reputations without consequence.
CAIDOV also rejected arguments that the damages were excessive, pointing to significant penalties imposed on corporations and organisations in other jurisdictions for misconduct.

Also, youth organisations under the banners of Nigerian Youths in Politics and the Coalition of Patriotic Youth Leaders urged restraint and respect for judicial authority.

Their representatives argued that dissatisfied litigants should pursue appeals through the courts rather than mobilising public opinion against judges or judicial decisions.

Nevertheless, veteran journalist and activist Richard Akinnola agreed with Falana. He questioned why some activists appeared eager to demand immediate compliance with the judgment while ignoring the well-established right of appeal.

Drawing from Nigerian legal history, he invoked the celebrated case involving the late human rights icon, Gani Fawehinmi, who successfully overturned a major defamation judgment on appeal after initially losing at trial.

Akinnola argued that no one demanded immediate compliance from Fawehinmi before the appellate process had run its course.

He also pointed to instances where governments themselves challenged adverse judgments through appeals rather than immediately complying.

The activist said: “I would never endorse abuse of freedom of expression and allow people to be defamed. However, when a judgment is given, and the aggrieved party has indicated an interest in appealing because it fundamentally disagrees with the judgment, I would expect Debo’s faction and some characters who parade themselves as activists to wait until the appeal is exhausted. Their insistence that SERAP must immediately comply with the judgment is highly suspicious and raises more questions about their intentions.”

However, more than 50 civil society organisations issued a joint statement expressing concern about the broader implications of the case. The signatories included Amnesty International Nigeria, ActionAid Nigeria, BudgIT Foundation, Centre for Democracy and Development, Media Rights Agenda, Yiaga Africa, and dozens of others.

They cautioned against the increasing use of defamation actions and legal pressure against organisations engaged in anti-corruption advocacy and public accountability work.

The coalition said: “Democratic societies depend on the ability of civil society organisations to question authority, scrutinise public institutions, and engage in robust public-interest advocacy without fear of disproportionate retaliation.”

The groups called for respect for constitutional and international human rights protections guaranteeing fair hearing, freedom of expression, and access to justice; greater institutional restraint and responsibility in public commentary on judicial matters where the underlying records are not publicly available; protection of civic space and public-interest advocacy from intimidation, harassment, or misuse of legal processes; and continued commitment by Nigerian institutions to constitutionalism, democratic accountability, and human rights norms under both domestic and international law.

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) described the judgment as anti-democratic and dangerous for freedom of expression.

The group argued that the ruling could discourage anti-corruption activism, investigative journalism, and public participation in governance.

According to HURIWA, the decision risked creating a climate of fear in which civil society organisations become reluctant to challenge powerful institutions.

The association further queried the circumstances surrounding the visit of DSS operatives to SERAP’s office, insisting that reports of questioning staff members and the presence of unmarked vehicles outside the office were capable of creating fear and apprehension.

HURIWA warned that the judgment could create a chilling effect on anti-corruption advocacy, investigative reporting, civic participation, and human rights activism in Nigeria.

The group also demanded transparency regarding the funding and prosecution of the case, asking whether public resources were used in what was presented as a private defamation suit involving two DSS operatives.

Describing the verdict as excessive and vindictive, HURIWA said it evoked memories of the era of military dictatorship under Sani Abacha, when sections of the judiciary were allegedly used to suppress dissent and legitimise repression. The organisation framed the case as part of a larger struggle over civic space and democratic accountability.

Amnesty raises alarm
Among the strongest reactions came from Amnesty International. The organisation described the judgment as deeply troubling and warned that it could have a chilling effect on civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders.

According to Amnesty, the ruling raises concerns regarding Nigeria’s obligations under both domestic constitutional protections and international human rights standards.

Amnesty warned that the judgment could encourage the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs),
which are legal actions designed to discourage criticism and silence public-interest advocacy.
It said: “Nigerian authorities must quash the judgment and end judicial harassment against SERAP and other civil society organisations in the country.”

Amnesty International urged Nigerian authorities to refrain from using defamation laws and civil litigation to suppress legitimate criticism and public interest advocacy; ensure that security agencies, including the DSS, operate strictly within the bounds of the law and respect human rights; protect human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society organisations from harassment, intimidation, and reprisals; and align domestic laws and judicial practice with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.

Similarly, the former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, argued that the facts did not support a defamation claim, questioning the reasoning underpinning the judgment and describing it as fundamentally flawed.

He stated: “To call this judgment a travesty is to do injustice to travesties. The facts do not add up to a case in defamation. To the extent that anything was made out, even the evidence by the claimants supports the claim by SERAP that their office was invaded.”
Pix: Gabriel