Court Orders SERAP to Pay N100m Damages to DSS Officials Over Defamatory X Posts

• Defamation: Court Orders SERAP To Pay DSS Officials ₦100 Million

The Federal Capital Territory High Court has ruled that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) must pay N100 million in damages to two Department of State Services (DSS) officers for publishing what the court described as a defamatory claim that security operatives unlawfully invaded the group’s Abuja office.

Justice Yusuf Halilu delivered the judgment on Tuesday in the suit filed by Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, who argued that SERAP’s September 9, 2024, posts on X damaged their personal reputations and that of the agency. The court also ordered SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, to issue a public apology on the organisation’s website, X handle, and specified national media outlets.

SERAP had alleged in the viral posts that DSS officers were occupying its office and demanding to see its directors, framing the incident as harassment and intimidation. The organisation called on President Bola Tinubu to direct the DSS to stop what it termed an attack on citizens’ rights. The DSS officials countered that the claims were false and lacked evidence, leading to their suspension pending investigation and causing them mental and psychological distress.

The judgment underscores the limits of free speech and the responsibility of influential civil society groups when making public allegations against state institutions. SERAP, a leading non-governmental organisation known for its advocacy on transparency, anti-corruption, poverty reduction, and socio-economic rights, frequently challenges government actions through litigation and public statements. While its work has earned international recognition, the court stressed that such prominence comes with the duty of due diligence before disseminating potentially damaging information.

Justice Halilu noted that SERAP failed to justify its claims in court. The defence of justification collapsed because evidence of unlawful occupation, harassment, or intimidation was not established. The judge highlighted that the publication, which spread widely online, directly affected the claimants, resulting in their suspension and public ridicule. He described the N100 million award as a “paltry sum” relative to the N5 billion originally sought, while also awarding N1 million in costs and 10 percent annual interest on the judgment sum until payment.

The ruling comes amid ongoing tensions between Nigeria’s security agencies and civil society organisations. The DSS, tasked with intelligence gathering and protecting national security, has faced repeated accusations of overreach, particularly under successive administrations. At the same time, rights groups like SERAP have documented cases of harassment, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on civic space. This case illustrates the delicate balance required in a democracy where both state institutions and watchdogs must operate within legal bounds.

Legal experts view the decision as a significant affirmation that libel remains actionable per se under Nigerian law. Once publication, identification of the claimants, defamatory meaning, and absence of justification are proven, specific proof of damage is not required. The court dismissed SERAP’s preliminary objections on issues of service and admissibility of evidence, clearing the way for the substantive ruling.

Justice Halilu emphasised that fundamental rights are not absolute. “Your right ends where another person’s own begins,” he stated, urging organisations that champion accountability to also respect the rights of public officials and institutions to fair hearing. He added that SERAP had ample time to retract the publication but failed to do so.

This development carries broader implications for civic advocacy in Nigeria. As digital platforms amplify voices and accelerate the spread of information, the potential for reputational harm increases. The case may prompt greater caution among NGOs in their use of social media, while reinforcing that security agencies can seek legal redress when they believe they have been wronged. It also tests the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter in disputes involving powerful state actors and influential watchdogs.

The court’s insistence on evidence over narrative sets a benchmark for future cases involving public interest statements. For SERAP, the judgment represents both a financial and reputational setback, even as the organisation continues its core mandate of holding power to account.

Nigeria’s democracy thrives when rights are protected on all sides — a principle the court has sought to uphold in this ruling.