Susan Abayomi
The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja delivered a landmark defamation judgment on May 5, 2026, ordering the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project to pay ₦100 million in damages to two Department of State Services officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele. Justice Yusuf Halilu ruled that SERAP’s September 2024 public statement alleging that DSS operatives unlawfully invaded its Abuja office was false and had tarnished the reputations of the two officers. The court found that the publication, shared on SERAP’s website and its official X account, was made without due verification and amounted to defamation under Nigerian law. In addition to the monetary damages, the judge mandated that SERAP issue public apologies in two national newspapers, two television stations, and on its own platform, alongside ₦1 million in litigation costs and 10 percent annual post-judgment interest until the full sum is paid.
SERAP’s statement had been issued at a time of heightened tension over fuel subsidy reforms and allegations of corruption within the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited. The organization had called on President Bola Tinubu to probe the claims and reverse the petrol price hike, and it alleged that DSS operatives stormed its office shortly after, intimidating staff and disrupting its operations. The DSS officials denied the invasion ever took place and filed the ₦5.5 billion defamation suit, arguing that the claim portrayed them as abusers of power and exposed them to public ridicule. During the trial, the court accepted evidence from the DSS that no such operation was authorized or carried out on the date in question.
In its immediate reaction, SERAP described the judgment as “totally unacceptable” and a “serious blow to civic space in Nigeria.” The organization maintained that its statement was made in good faith and was based on information it received from staff who believed their office had been compromised. SERAP argued that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for how the government can use defamation laws to silence critical voices and discourage civil society from holding public institutions accountable. It also accused the Tinubu administration of weaponizing state agencies and the judiciary to target activists, journalists, and advocacy groups who raise concerns about governance and corruption.
The organization has now instructed its senior lawyers, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal without delay. SERAP’s legal team contends that the trial court failed to properly consider the evidence and legal arguments presented, including questions around the proper legal status of the DSS and whether the agency was correctly named in the proceedings. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa noted that the judgment did not address SERAP’s defense of fair comment and public interest, which he said are recognized protections under both Nigerian constitutional law and international human rights standards. The appeal is expected to focus on these procedural and substantive legal grounds.
SERAP has framed the case as a classic example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, which is often used to intimidate non-governmental organizations and drain their resources through prolonged litigation. The group said the lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of judicial harassment aimed at curtailing freedom of expression and shrinking the space for accountability work in Nigeria. It warned that if the judgment stands, it could have a chilling effect on other civil society organizations that rely on public statements to highlight alleged abuses of power or demand transparency from government institutions. The organization emphasized that its mandate is to promote human rights and anti-corruption reforms, not to spread falsehoods.
The judgment has already drawn reactions from legal practitioners and human rights advocates across the country. Some have expressed concern that the size of the damages and the mandatory public apology could discourage advocacy groups from speaking out on sensitive matters involving security agencies. Others argue that public institutions and their officials also deserve protection from reputational harm caused by unverified claims, and that courts have a duty to balance freedom of expression with the right to dignity and reputation. The case thus sits at the intersection of two competing constitutional rights: the right to free speech and the right to protect one’s name and honor.
For SERAP, the financial and reputational stakes are significant. The ₦100 million award, while lower than the ₦5.5 billion originally sought, remains a substantial burden for a non-profit organization that depends largely on grants and donations. The requirement to publish apologies across multiple media platforms also poses a reputational challenge, as it would amount to a public admission of wrongdoing. SERAP has said it will continue its work while pursuing the appeal, insisting that defending civic space is essential to Nigeria’s democratic development. The organization has also urged its supporters and partners to stand with it as it challenges what it calls an attempt to criminalize advocacy.
The case now moves to the appellate level, where SERAP will seek to overturn both the liability finding and the quantum of damages. Legal observers expect the appeal to test how Nigerian courts interpret the boundaries of free speech when it concerns allegations against state actors. The outcome could influence future defamation cases involving civil society groups and may shape how advocacy organizations communicate allegations involving public officials. For now, SERAP maintains that it acted in the public interest and that the judgment should not deter legitimate scrutiny of government conduct.
