BY. CHARLES CHIJIOKE
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has faulted what it called a “seriously flawed judgment” delivered by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja, after the court awarded N100 million in damages against the organisation in a defamation case brought by officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice Yusuf Halilu, who presided over the matter, held that SERAP defamed the DSS officials and ordered the group to pay N100 million in damages, alongside N1 million in litigation costs and a 10 percent annual post-judgment interest on the sum until liquidation.
The court also directed the organisation to publish public apologies.
In its reaction, SERAP described the ruling as unacceptable, warning that it poses a threat to civic engagement and
accountability in Nigeria. “This judgment is totally unacceptable to us. It is a travesty and a serious blow to civic space in Nigeria. It reflects a troubling pattern under the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of using defamation laws to punish legitimate criticism and suppress accountability,” the organisation said.
The group confirmed that it has briefed its legal team, including Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, to challenge the verdict at the appellate court.
Providing further context, SERAP argued that the case fits the pattern of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which it said is designed to discourage civic activism. “This case represents a textbook example of judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), designed to intimidate civil society and deter legitimate human rights advocacy,” the statement read.
The organisation accused the current administration of deploying state institutions to stifle dissent. “The Tinubu government is misusing both the DSS and the judicial system to target activists, journalists, and ordinary Nigerians who are peacefully exercising their fundamental human rights,” it said.
SERAP maintained that its actions were in the public interest, particularly in relation to corruption allegations involving the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL). “Rather than deploying state institutions to intimidate critics, the government should be protecting those working to expose corruption,” it added.
Challenging the substance of the ruling, the organisation stated: “We strongly disagree with the judgment, which fails to reflect the evidence presented before the court and disregards Nigeria’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.”
It further warned of broader implications for democratic freedoms. “This judgment sends a dangerous message and creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression, civic participation, and anti-corruption work. Strategic lawsuits against public participation undermine the rule of law by diverting judicial processes from their proper purpose—justice—to repression.”
The group also stressed the role of the judiciary in safeguarding rights. “Courts have a duty to prevent the misuse of legal proceedings and to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and association,” it said, adding that the verdict raises “serious concerns regarding compliance with international human rights law.”
Reaffirming its stance, SERAP said: “We are committed to pursuing all available legal avenues, including appeal, to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that fundamental rights are protected. We stand resolute. We will continue to defend civic space, promote transparency, and advance accountability in Nigeria.”
The dispute traces back to September 9, 2024, when SERAP alleged that DSS operatives unlawfully entered its Abuja office shortly after the organisation called on President Tinubu to probe alleged corruption within the NNPCL and reverse fuel price increases.
The case underscores a growing friction between civil society organisations and state security institutions over issues of transparency, governance, and public accountability. Legal analysts note that the outcome of SERAP’s planned appeal could shape future interpretations of defamation law in Nigeria, particularly in cases involving public-interest advocacy.
If the ruling stands, it may encourage more public officials to resort to defamation claims against advocacy groups, potentially constraining civic space. However, a successful appeal could reinforce judicial protections for free expression and set clearer limits on the use of defamation suits in matters of public concern.
