Justice Halilu Yusuf of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, has awarded damages of ₦100 million against the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project in a defamation suit instituted by two operatives of the Department of State Services.
In a detailed judgment, the court held that the claimants—Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, both officials of the DSS—were justified in approaching the court to seek redress over what they described as false and damaging allegations made against them by SERAP.
The suit arose from a series of public statements issued by SERAP on September 9, 2024, via its social media platform, in which the organisation alleged that officers of the State Security Service had unlawfully invaded and occupied its office in Abuja. According to the claimants, the publication not only misrepresented events but also exposed them to public ridicule, reputational harm, and professional embarrassment.
In its posts, SERAP had claimed that security operatives were present at its office, demanding access to its leadership and engaging in what it described as harassment and intimidation. The organisation further called on Bola Ahmed Tinubu to intervene by directing the security agency to cease what it termed an attack on civil liberties.
However, during the course of the trial, the court found that the allegations lacked sufficient evidentiary backing and were defamatory in nature. Justice Yusuf ruled that the claimants successfully established that the statements made by SERAP were false and injurious to their reputation.
The court emphasized that while civil society organisations play a critical role in promoting accountability and defending human rights, such responsibilities must be exercised within the bounds of truth, accuracy, and due diligence. It noted that public commentary, particularly when it involves security agencies and named individuals, must be carefully verified to avoid causing unjust harm.
As part of the judgment, the court ordered SERAP to pay ₦100 million in damages to the claimants as compensation for the reputational damage suffered. In addition to the monetary award, the organisation was directed to issue a public apology to the two DSS operatives.
The apology is to be published in two widely circulated national newspapers and broadcast on two television stations, ensuring that the retraction receives similar visibility to the original allegation. This measure, the court noted, is necessary to mitigate the damage caused by the initial publication and to restore the reputation of the affected individuals.
Furthermore, the court awarded an additional ₦1 million as the cost of litigation, reflecting the expenses incurred by the claimants in pursuing the case. Justice Yusuf also ordered that the total sum awarded would attract an interest rate of 10 percent per annum until it is fully paid, thereby reinforcing the obligation on SERAP to comply promptly with the judgment.
The ruling underscores the legal risks associated with public advocacy, particularly in the digital age where information can be disseminated rapidly and widely. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing the right to free expression with the need to protect individuals and institutions from defamatory statements.
Legal analysts note that the case may have broader implications for civil society organisations, media platforms, and advocacy groups, especially in how they handle allegations involving security agencies and public officials. The judgment serves as a reminder that while criticism of government institutions is a legitimate component of democratic engagement, such criticism must be grounded in verifiable facts.
For SERAP, the verdict represents a significant legal and financial setback. The organisation, known for its advocacy on governance, transparency, and human rights issues, may now be required to reassess its communication strategies and internal verification processes to avoid similar legal challenges in the future.
As of the time of reporting, there has been no official response from SERAP regarding the judgment or whether it intends to appeal the decision. However, the case is likely to continue to generate debate within legal and civil society circles about the limits of advocacy and the responsibilities that come with public influence.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces a key principle in law: that freedom of expression, while fundamental, is not absolute, and must be exercised with a corresponding duty of care, particularly when reputations and institutional integrity are at stake.
