FHC orders SERAP to pay two DSS operatives N101m in damages
• Amnesty International faults court’s verdict A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Maitama has awarded N101 million in damages and costs against the Socio-Economic Rights
• Amnesty International faults court’s verdict
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Maitama has awarded N101 million in damages and costs against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
The court found that the rights group defamed two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) through a false publication it made on September 10, 2024.
But Amnesty International (AI) described the court’s verdict as a dangerous blow to free expression and the civic space.
The DSS officials - Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele - had sued SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, for making false claims in publications on the group’s website and social media platforms that the claimants invaded their Abuja office on September 9, 2024 and subjected them to harassment.
In a judgment he delivered yesterday, Justice Halilu Yusuf held, among other things, that the claimants led sufficient evidence to establish all the ingredients of defamation.
Justice Yusuf rejected the defence of justification raised by SERAP and Oluwadare because they failed to provide evidence that their publications were not based on falsehood.
The judge averred that words like “invasion”, “forceful entry”, and “harassment” were used inaccurately.
He held that the defendants admitted at trial that the DSS officials did not forcefully enter SERAP’s premises and did not brandish any weapon.
READ ALSO: Davido suspends music career to lead Adeleke’s re-election campaign in Osun
The judge also held that the defendants’ publications injured the claimants’ reputations in their professional capacity and standing in society.
Justice Yusuf said: “Having been unable to establish invasion and harassment, the defence of justification fails. There is no doubt that the publication affected the claimants mentally and psychologically.”
The judge said, going forward, it was necessary for SERAP and its officials to ensure care and due diligence before releasing information to the public.
He added that in the exercise of their right to tweet and send information out, the defendants should be aware of the rights of others, particularly as they relate to government agencies and their officials.
Justice Yusuf dismissed the defendants’ objections against the competence of the suit and held that the claimants possessed the requisite locus standi to file the case and that the court had the jurisdiction to entertain it.
He held that as against the defendants’ argument, the claimants must not be named in the publication complained about for defamation to be established.
Justice Yusuf noted that from when the claimants complained about the inaccuracy of the publications, the defendants failed to take any steps to pull down the injurious publication.
He adjudged the publications as defamatory and awarded damages of N100 million against the defendants in addition to N1 million as cost of prosecuting the suit.
The judge also ordered the defendants to publish a public apology on SERAP’s website, X handle, two national daily newspapers and two television stations.
He held that the judgment sum shall attract 10 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment until the sum is paid by the defendants.
Faulting the judgment yesterday, Amnesty International stated that it raises serious concerns about Nigeria’s obligations under its Constitution and binding international human rights law.
“The judgment risks undermining the rights to freedom of expression, association, and civic participation, and may have a chilling effect on civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders working to promote transparency and accountability.
“This judgment sends a deeply troubling signal about the state of civic space in Nigeria,” said Isa Sanusi, director of Amnesty International Nigeria.
“The judgment appears to depart from these principles and may embolden further use of SLAPPs against civil society actors in Nigeria. Such developments risk weakening public oversight, discouraging whistleblowing, and undermining efforts to combat corruption and illicit financial flows.
“Nigerian authorities must quash the judgment and end judicial harassment against SERAP and other civil society organisations in the country. Authorities must stop using judicial harassment as a tool to silence critics, activists and other Nigerians solely for the peaceful exercise of their human rights.
“Efforts to promote transparency and accountability—including challenging allegations of corruption in public institutions—are squarely within the legitimate mandate of civil society organisations. Undermining these efforts ultimately harms the public interest and erodes trust in democratic institutions.
“Civil society organisations must be able to carry out their legitimate work without fear of harassment, intimidation, or punitive legal action. The use of defamation laws in this context appears inconsistent with international standards and risks silencing critical voices.
“Amnesty International recalls that Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. Section 40 further protects the right to peaceful assembly and association.
“These rights are essential pillars of democratic governance and accountability.
“Nigeria is also a state party to several international and regional human rights instruments that impose binding obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil these rights.
“The United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and on the situation of human rights defenders, have consistently warned against the misuse of defamation laws and civil litigation to stifle dissent.
“They have emphasised that public authorities and officials should tolerate a higher level of scrutiny and criticism, particularly on matters of public interest such as corruption, governance, and the management of public resources.”
