High Court Ruling Awards Damages in SERAP Defamation Case
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has awarded NOK 100 million in damages to the Corporate Trustee of the Socio-Economic Rights and Responsibility Project (SERAP) in a defamation suit initiated by two employees of the Department of State Services (DSS).
In its ruling delivered on Tuesday, the court found SERAP liable for defaming DSS operatives and mandated it to pay NOK 100 million in general damages. Additionally, the court ordered SERAP to compensate the plaintiffs with one million naira to cover legal fees incurred during the proceedings.
The court directed SERAP to publicly apologize to the involved operatives. This apology must be disseminated via SERAP’s X account, published in two leading national newspapers, and broadcast across two television stations.
Moreover, the court stipulated that the awarded amount of N100 million would accrue interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment until the total amount is paid in full.
This ruling originates from a statement made by SERAP on September 9, 2024, which alleged that DSS operatives had unlawfully entered its Abuja office, harassing and intimidating staff members. SERAP subsequently called for President Bola Tinubu to intervene and impose restrictions on security agencies.
In response to these allegations, two DSS officials were suspended pending internal disciplinary action. However, after an investigation by DSS leadership found no basis for SERAP’s claims, the operatives retaliated with a N5.5 billion defamation suit against SERAP.
Judge Khalil Yusuf, who delivered the judgment, determined that the DSS employees’ claims were indeed defamatory. He highlighted SERAP’s acknowledgment of publishing the disputed statement, which the court classified as “defamatory in the plaintiffs’ professional capacity.”
The court dismissed two preliminary objections raised by SERAP. The judge noted that evidence was presented demonstrating a conflict between SERAP and the two operatives. He stated, “The contention regarding the first plaintiff signing the witness oath at his solicitor’s office is moot.” The judge asserted that the oath was properly administered, negating SERAP’s claims.
Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of whether the first proceeding was properly served. It found that the second defendant had not filed a conditional appearance to question the court’s jurisdiction and had indeed acknowledged receipt of the court documents. The court characterized SERAP’s arguments as “alarming and dismissed them.”
In a post dated September 9, 2024, SERAP claimed via its X account that DSS officials were “illegally occupying” its Abuja offices and demanding a meeting with its directors, urging immediate intervention from President Tinubu to halt alleged harassment.
In response, the DSS clarified that the two operatives’ visit was routine, intended to familiarize themselves with new leadership. Nevertheless, SERAP maintained its position, reiterating that the DSS had unlawfully invaded its office and assaulted its employees.
Despite inconclusive investigations following SERAP’s allegations, on November 26, 2025, the organization published another statement insisting that DSS personnel had trespassed into its office. They emphasized their commitment to their earlier claims, stating that their position was substantiated by the information provided by a front desk worker.
The lawsuit underscored the prevailing tension between government agencies and civil society organizations in Nigeria. During the court proceedings, testimonies indicated that while no physical assaults occurred, the branding of the DSS operatives by SERAP severely impacted their professional reputations.
The case is notable as it marks the first instance in Nigeria where a security official has pursued a defamation suit in a private capacity. The implications of this ruling could set a precedent for future interactions between security agencies and the civil sector, with far-reaching consequences in the realm of freedom of speech and accountability.
