SERAP Challenges ₦100 Million Defamation Ruling by Abuja Court
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed an appeal against a ₦100 million defamation judgment awarded to two State Department officials by the Federal Capital Sub-High Court in Abuja. The organization is contesting the ruling made on May 5, 2026, which it describes as a significant miscarriage of justice.
In a statement released by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization condemned the court’s verdict delivered by Justice Yusuf Khalil. The appeal, submitted by Senior Advocate Tayo Oetigbo on May 8, 2026, includes a request for a stay of execution while the case is under further review.
SERAP plans to amend the notice of appeal upon receiving a certified true copy of the judgment, aiming to highlight additional substantive errors within the court’s decision. The organization asserts that this appeal, along with the request for a stay of execution, aims to secure appropriate legal protections during the appeals process.
Justice Khalil had mandated SERAP to pay ₦100,000,000 in damages to Department of State Services (DSS) officers Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, following allegations made in a SERAP post on its X-handle that asserted DSS personnel had illegitimately occupied its Abuja office in September 2024. In addition to the damages, the court ordered SERAP to cover legal costs of £1 million, interest accruing at 10% per annum until the total payment is made, and to issue a public apology across its digital and media platforms.
In its appeal, SERAP contends that the lower court’s ruling is not only legally flawed but also procedurally unsound and lacking proper evidential support. The organization emphasized that fundamental legal errors underpin the judgment, which it argues renders the decision invalid and perverted.
SERAP also criticized the trial court for relying on witness statements that were not duly sworn before an oath commissioner, stating that pivotal testimonies were not credible. Furthermore, the group challenges the court’s conclusion of defamation, arguing that the impugned publication did not clearly identify any specific DSS employee, lacking direct identifiers such as names or photographs.
The organization maintains that the trial court wrongly focused on the subjective impressions of DSS employees rather than applying the objective legal standards necessary for defamation cases. SERAP contends that the court failed to recognize crucial defenses, including justification and qualified privilege, asserting that the disputed publications were made under conditions of qualified privilege to inform the public about the actions of national security agencies.
Moreover, SERAP argues that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any actual reputational or financial damage resulting from the publication. In highlighting the potential ramifications of enforcing the judgment, SERAP warns that compliance could severely destabilize its operations. The group described its work as vital to numerous individuals and communities, particularly those affected by human rights violations.
Lastly, SERAP claims that immediate enforcement of the judgment will infringe upon its constitutional right to appeal. The lawsuit originated from allegations by DSS employees that SERAP’s post on September 9, 2024, falsely suggested they were involved in unlawful behavior. The court had initially faced a demand of £5 billion from the plaintiffs but ultimately settled on a ₦100 million award, which SERAP argues does not account for the full context of the case.
