Rights group seeks reversal after court orders N100m payout to secret police officers in libel case

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has denounced the Federal Capital Territory High Court's judgment in the N5.5bn defamation lawsuit filed by two Department of State Services officials, describing it as "seriously flawed".

n

The lawsuit was filed by Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, both officials of the DSS, and Justice Yusuf Halilu ordered SERAP to pay N100m in damages to the officials for alleged defamation on Tuesday in suit number FCT/HC/CV/4547/24.

n

The court also directed SERAP to issue public apologies, pay N1m in litigation costs, and 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until fully paid, prompting criticism from one of the lawyers in the suit, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa.

n

Adegboruwa criticised the judgment for not reflecting the legal arguments canvassed, especially on the legal status of the DSS as to whether the agency established by law is DSS or SSS, and whether public officers working in public institutions can sue for defamation on behalf of their organisations.

n

SERAP's Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, described the judgment as "totally unacceptable, a travesty and a serious blow to civic space in Nigeria", adding that it reflected a troubling pattern under the government of President Bola Tinubu of using defamation laws to punish legitimate criticism and suppress accountability.

n

The organisation stated that it would immediately proceed to appeal the judgment, instructing its lawyers, Tayo Oyetibo and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, to do so, and asserting that the case represented a textbook example of judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

n

SERAP argued that the Tinubu government was misusing both the DSS and the judicial system to target activists, journalists, and ordinary Nigerians who are peacefully exercising their fundamental human rights, rather than protecting those working to expose corruption.

n

The organisation strongly disagreed with the judgment, which it said failed to reflect the evidence presented before the court and disregarded Nigeria's constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations, sending a dangerous message and creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression, civic participation, and anti-corruption work.

n

SERAP noted that courts have a duty to prevent the misuse of legal proceedings and to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and association, and that judicial authorities must ensure that defamation laws were not weaponised to silence dissent or suppress legitimate advocacy.

n

The organisation committed to pursuing all available legal avenues to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that fundamental rights are protected, and to continue defending civic space, promoting transparency, and advancing accountability in Nigeria.

n

Amnesty International Nigeria described the ruling as "a dangerous blow to free expression and civic space", expressing "grave concern" over the judgment and warning that it could have a chilling effect on civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders.

n

Amnesty International Nigeria Director, Isa Sanusi, said the judgment sent a deeply troubling signal about the state of civic space in Nigeria, and that it appeared to depart from principles of freedom of expression and association, potentially emboldening further use of strategic lawsuits against civil society actors.

n

Adegboruwa faulted the decision of the court to award interest at 10 per cent on the damages when it was not a contract, and no case for interest was proved by the plaintiffs before the court, describing the judgment as "strange" and "very dangerous for our democracy".

n

The lawsuit arose after SERAP, on September 9, 2024, alleged that DSS officials unlawfully entered its Abuja office following the organisation's call on President Tinubu to investigate corruption allegations in NNPCL and reverse fuel price increases.

n

SERAP maintained that its publication was directed at the DSS as an institution and not the individual claimants, and that the officials' actions caused fear among its staff, describing them as "harassment, intimidation, and ill-treatment".

n

Justice Yusuf Halilu held that the case was one of libel and outlined the legal requirements for proving defamation, including publication, identification, and defamatory meaning, ruling that the claimants were identifiable through the description in SERAP's publication.