The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) on Tuesday to pay N100 million in damages to two Department of State Services personnel for a defamatory article on X.
Justice Yusuf Halilu, who gave judgment in the case FCT/HC/CV/4547/24, ruled that the claimants, DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, correctly demonstrated that SERAP’s publication on its official X account was defamatory.
SERAP said in a series of postings published on its X handle on September 9, 2024, that officers from the State Security Service unjustly occupied its office and requested to see its directors.
The organisation wrote, “Officers from Nigeria’s State Security Service are presently unlawfully occupying SERAP’s office in Abuja, asking to see our directors.
“President Tinubu must immediately direct the SSS to end the harassment, intimidation, and attack on the rights of Nigerians.”
The claimants sued SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, as the first and second defendants, respectively.
They demanded N5 billion in damages; N50 million in legal fees; a public apology to be published on SERAP’s website and in two national newspapers—The PUNCH and Vanguard—as well as broadcast on Channels Television and Arise Television; and 10% yearly interest on the judgment total till liquidation.
The DSS officials claimed that SERAP erroneously stated that the service’s operatives invaded its Abuja headquarters in September 2024, which they said harmed their and the agency’s credibility.
In the judgment, Justice Halilu held that SERAP, “a prominent reputable non-governmental organization that pushes for transparency, accountability, and protection of economic and social rights, should also take cognizance of other people’s rights.”
The judge also stated that although SERAP focuses on issues such as corruption, poverty, inequality, and ensuring public resources benefit citizens, it must exercise caution in its publications.
“It is most necessary for care and due diligence to be taken by SERAP before tweeting or releasing any particular information with respect to the action of an agency of government for public consumption.
“In the exercise of their right, SERAP must equally beware of other people’s rights. The right to be able to tweet and then put information out there must correspondingly take into account the fact that other agencies, i.e., even government, have a right to be given a fair hearing as it relates to any such information,” the judge said.
The court further held that “it is not in doubt that the said publication, which has gone viral, clearly affected the claimants mentally and psychologically.”
Justice Halilu mentioned that the claimants, who work as DSS personnel, were suspended pending investigation.
He added that the “defendants who had all the time to have retracted the said write-up failed to do so. Claimants clearly are entitled to be assuaged in damages from the antecedents of what had played out, having established that the publication by the defendant is unjustifiably libelous.
“The law will not stand still while the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for good. The law is an equal disperser of justice and leaves none without a remedy for his right. It is a basic and elementary principle of common law that wherever there is a wrong, legal or injurious, that is, there ought to be a remedy to redress the wrong.”
Although the claimants sought N5bn, the judge awarded N100m as damages.
“It is my assessment that N100 million is a paltry sum that this court hereby awards against the defendants in favor of the claimants as damages,” Justice Halilu said.
The court further ordered the defendants to apologize to the claimants via SERAP’s website, X handle, The PUNCH and Vanguard newspapers, Arise Television, and Channels Television.
The court also awarded 10% yearly interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment till liquidation, as well as N1m in costs of litigation.
Justice Halilu emphasized that fundamental rights are not absolute.
“In the exercise of a right, we must be very careful because these rights are not open-ended. Your right ends where another person’s own begins,” he said.
The judge ruled that the justification argument failed since the evidence presented in court did not prove the alleged invasion, harassment, and intimidation by DSS officers.
He also determined that the claimants established the elements of libel, such as publishing, reference to the claimants, defamatory meaning, and lack of justification.
The court dismissed the defendants’ preliminary objections, which challenged the suit’s competency, admissibility of evidence, and service of originating processes, as lacking substance.
Justice Halilu further emphasized that libel is actionable by itself and does not require proof of specific injury once publication is proved.
He ruled that the publication harmed the claimants’ reputations, exposed them to public ridicule, and resulted in their suspension, requiring compensation.
The court then entered judgment in favor of the claimants and awarded the reliefs in part.
