UPDATED: Court finds SERAP liable for defaming SSS operatives, awards N100m damages

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja on Tuesday held a leading public accountability-focussed not-for-profit, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), liable for defaming Nigeria’s secret police organisation, the State Security Service (SSS), and two

The judge, Yusuf Halilu, delivered the judgement in a defamation suit filed by the SSS operatives against SERAP.

The SSS operatives sued SERAP in October 2024, accusing the non-governmental organisation of falsely claiming that its operatives, in September 2024, invaded its Abuja office.

Two operatives of the SSS – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – allegedly defamed by SERAP’s claim were joined as co-claimants.

The claimants, who sought N5 billion damages against SERAP, stated that the alleged false claim negatively impacted their reputation.

SERAP offered a rebuttal during the trial.

But delivering judgement on Tuesday, the judge said the key issue was whether the claimants proved defamation and were entitled to be granted their prayers. He noted that the defendants did not challenge the evidence on oath put forward by the plaintiffs.

He adopted the issue framed by the second defendant. It asked whether the claimants proved libel and were entitled to be granted their prayers.

He said defamation remains a distinct cause of action, “legally and historically,” and involves exposing a person to hatred or ridicule. He said it covers libel, which is written, and slander, which is spoken.

He said libel is actionable once there is a publication that is false and damaging.

On publication, the judge said: “From the context of the documents before the court, it is settled there was a publication.”

He referred to 21 March 2025, when Sarah John tendered social media publications marked as exhibits. He said Exhibit 3 showed that SERAP published statements about the officers.

The judge said the court must determine whether the words were defamatory. He described the words as innuendo that could be derogatory.

He cited the description of the officers in the publication. “The evidence of the SSS officer is tall, large, dark, slim, dark skin,” he said.

“I have taken judicial notice of their features, and all suit the claimants in this case,” the judge added.

He said that although SERAP did not mention names, the description identified the officers. “They described them as tall, large, dark-skinned persons,” he said.

“It cannot be challenged that there was defamation against the claimants,” the judge ruled.

He said the publication suggested that the officers occupied SERAP’s office unlawfully and harassed its staff. He said it portrayed them as acting without authority and lacking professional character.

“Allegations of intimidation and harassment should not be attributed to SSS officers as in this case,” said the judge.

“The publication clearly injured the claimants in their profession,” he added.

The judge said the defendants did not admit in court that SSS operatives broke into their office or harassed them.

“Once there is publication, it does not require further proof. The publication is indeed libellous,” he said.

He added that the statements may have gone viral beyond Nigeria and affected the claimants’ physical and psychological wellbeing.

The court awarded N100 million damages against SERAP.

It also ordered the group to publish an apology on its website, in two national newspapers, and on television stations.

In addition, the court awarded 10 per cent annual interest on the judgment sum until payment and N1 million as cost of the suit.

“Where there is a mistake, there must be a remedy,” the judge ruled.

‘Defence failed to prove claim of harassment ‘

Mr Halilu also pointed out that the defence’s own evidence undermined its claims of invasion, harassment, and intimidation by SSS officers.

The judge cited the defence’s claims under cross-examination. According to him, a defence witness confirmed that two SSS officers visited SERAP’s office on 9 September 2024.

The witness said one was female and the other male. She also confirmed that she spoke with the female officer.

Asked if the officers forced their way in, she said they “followed due process to gain access.”

She confirmed that no weapon was displayed, no staff member was assaulted, and no property was damaged or seized.

Another defence witness also admitted that no doors or barriers were broken and no weapons were used, narrated the judge.

The judge said these admissions contradicted the words used in the publications.

“Where then is the basis for the claims of invasion, harassment, and intimidation?” he asked.

He agreed with the claimants’ lawyer, Kehinde Akinlolu, SAN, that the publications were false.

Mr Halilu said once a defamatory publication is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify it, but defendants relied on justification but failed to prove the truth of the claims. He added that the evidence showed the visit to SERAP’s office was routine and not unlawful.

The judge noted that the law cannot support claims that are not backed by evidence.

Objections failed

Earlier, before deciding the main suit, Judge Halilu dismissed all preliminary objections filed by the defendants.

He held that the court had jurisdiction and that the claimants were properly before it. He said issues raised on witness statements, admissibility of documents, service of processes, and lack of cause of action lacked merit.

On the witness statement signed in a lawyer’s office, the judge said it became valid evidence once adopted in court. He added that the oath record showed it was properly sworn at the High Court registry in Abuja, which was not challenged.

He also rejected arguments over certification fees, saying the defence relied on a repealed law and failed to show any applicable fee under current law.

On service, he said the second defendant’s filing of processes and appearance through counsel showed clear awareness of the case. “If you were not served, why are you in court?” he asked.

He also held that the claimants had standing because a dispute arose from the publications. On the first defendant’s name, he said the issue had already been resolved through an amendment granted by the court and adopted by both parties.

Judge urges caution in public statements

Judge Halilu said SERAP, as a civil society group, must exercise due diligence before publishing allegations.

He noted that while citizens have the right to speak, such rights are not unlimited.

“In exercising that right, others’ rights must also be respected,” he said.

He warned that social media users must be careful to avoid harming others’ reputation. “I hope this judgment serves as a lesson,” he added.

ALSO READ: Court delivers judgement in SSS’ N5 billion defamation suit against SERAP Tuesday

 

Background

The SSS, alongside two of its officers – arah John and Gabriel Ogundele – sued SERAP in October 2024, accussing the group of falsely claiming that its operatives invaded SERAP’s Abuja office in September.

The plaintiffs sought N5 billion in damages. They said the claim damaged their reputation.

They said SERAP alleged that SSS invaded its office and that the claim was widely shared on Twitter and reported by media organisations, including The Sun, Channels Television, Arise News, and PREMIUM TIMES.

They said the allegation had a serious impact on them.

The SSS denied invading SERAP’s office or harassing its staff. The two officers gave evidence in support of the claim.

SERAP, in its defence, maintained that SSS operatives stormed its Abuja office in September.

The group said the visit could not have been for social reasons, given the agency’s reputation for harassment.

SERAP said the incident followed its letter to President Bola Tinubu calling for a probe into alleged corruption in the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and reversal of the increase in petrol prices.

The civil soceity group rejected the judgement on Tuesday, describing it as flawed, and vowed to appeal against it.