A Coalition of 52 Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), human rights advocates and public interest groups, has lamented the recent development surrounding the defamation judgment reportedly secured by officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

The groups, however, warned of possible implications for civic freedoms, judicial transparency and constitutional democracy.

In a joint statement signed by ActionAid Nigeria, Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT Foundation, Centre for Democracy and Development, Media Rights Agenda, Yiaga Africa, Transition Monitoring Group, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, SERAP, among others, the organisations said they were troubled by the growing public discourse around the judgment despite reports that neither the Certified True Copy (CTC) nor the full text of the ruling had been publicly released at the time reactions and commentaries emerged.

According to the groups, such circumstances raise important concerns regarding procedural fairness, institutional responsibility, and adherence to the principles of due process that underpin constitutional democracy.

IN another development, a group, Civic Hive, has urged civil society organisations to transition from street protests to constructive, data-driven engagement with the government to shape policy and strengthen democracy.

This approach, according to it, will prioritise accountability, civic technology, and grassroots involvement, particularly among youths, to foster sustainable development and inclusive governance.

Head, Civic Hive, Joseph Amenaghawon, during a media briefing on the nomination for Active Citizens Awards 2026, said: “The civil space has been through phases in the last five years; there was a time the emphasis was on closing civil space.”

Meanwhile, members of the public are encouraged to submit nominations for deserving individuals and organisations through the official nomination platform from May 14, 2026, to June 14, 2026. The coalition cited Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court, saying that fair hearing extends beyond courtroom proceedings to include transparency, access to judicial decisions and the opportunity to pursue appellate rights.

The statement further referenced Section 39 (1) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information without interference, as well as Section 22, which mandates the media and civic actors to hold government accountable.

The organisations also relied on international legal instruments, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, noting that the African Charter has been domesticated in Nigerian law through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

According to the coalition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has consistently maintained that restrictions on civic expression and public-interest advocacy must satisfy tests of legality, necessity and proportionality in a democratic society.

The groups, therefore, expressed concern over what they described as the apparent delay in releasing the CTC of the judgment, stressing that timely access to court decisions is central to the administration of justice.

The coalition added that the Supreme Court had repeatedly affirmed that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, describing fair hearing as the bedrock of constitutional adjudication in Nigeria.

The coalition said that delays in making judgments or certified true copies available in matters of significant constitutional and public importance could undermine fair hearing and appeal rights, transparency in judicial administration, public confidence in the courts, responsible civic engagement and trust in democratic institutions.

The organisations, however, cautioned against what they described as the increasing use of defamation litigation, coercive legal measures and institutional intimidation in cases involving anti-corruption advocacy and public accountability work.

The coalition, which further maintained that seeking appellate review of a judgment should not be construed as contempt for the judiciary or disobedience to the rule of law, called for the immediate release of the CTC of the judgment, respect for constitutional and international human rights protections, greater institutional restraint in public commentary on judicial matters, protection of civic space from intimidation, and continued commitment to constitutionalism and democratic accountability.