The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), has filed an appeal against the judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja, which awarded ₦100 million in damages to officials of the Department of State Services over alleged defamation.
SERAP described the ruling as “a travesty and a miscarriage of justice” and said the decision was legally flawed and procedurally defective.
The appeal was filed on May 8, 2026, by senior advocate Tayo Oyetibo on behalf of the organisation. SERAP also filed an application seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
Justice Yusuf Halilu had ordered SERAP to pay ₦100 million in damages to DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, issue public apologies, pay ₦1 million in litigation costs, and pay a 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest until the damages are fully settled.
In its Notice of Appeal, SERAP argued that the lower court relied on defective evidence and failed to properly apply established legal principles relating to defamation, jurisdiction and fair trial standards.
The organisation said the judgment “rests on fundamental legal and evidential errors that go to the root of jurisdiction and fairness in adjudication” and insisted the decision was “perverse and a nullity.”
SERAP argued that the suit was fundamentally defective because the original writ was filed against “Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project,” which it described as a non-juristic entity, before later being amended to substitute “The Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project.”
According to SERAP, “an action commenced against a non-juristic person is fundamentally defective and does not constitute a misnomer which is capable of amendment.”
The organisation also faulted the trial court for holding that the publications complained of referred personally to the DSS officials.
SERAP maintained that the publications did not mention the claimants by name, rank, photograph or any unique identifier and argued that the court wrongly relied on the subjective interpretation of DSS personnel instead of the objective legal test established in defamation law.
The appeal further challenged the admissibility of the first claimant’s witness statement on oath.
SERAP said the claimant admitted during cross-examination that the statement was signed in her lawyer’s chambers and not before a Commissioner for Oaths, rendering the deposition defective under Nigerian law.
The organisation also argued that the trial court failed to uphold its defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.
According to SERAP, evidence presented before the court showed that DSS officers conducted an unannounced visit to its office, concealed their identities and refused to provide identification, actions it said caused apprehension among staff members.
SERAP further contended that the publications were made in the public interest and on an occasion of qualified privilege to inform Nigerians about the conduct of state security agencies.
The organisation also challenged the damages awarded by the court, arguing that the DSS officials failed to prove actual reputational harm, financial loss, suspension, disciplinary action or any professional setback linked to the publications.
SERAP argued that no witness from the public testified that the publications were understood to refer personally to the claimants or that their reputations had been lowered.
In its application for stay of execution, SERAP warned that enforcement of the judgment could cripple its operations and threaten its continued existence.
The organisation said execution of the judgment would disrupt ongoing human rights interventions, investigations and advocacy programmes, while also affecting employees, consultants, vendors and beneficiaries dependent on its work.
SERAP stated that thousands of individuals and communities rely on its legal and advocacy interventions and warned that halting its operations would negatively affect access to justice and public interest advocacy in Nigeria.
The organisation added that enforcing the judgment before the appeal is determined would undermine its constitutional right to appeal because it would lack the resources needed to prosecute the case at the Court of Appeal.
The suit, marked CV/4547/2024, was instituted by DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
