The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has challenged the ₦100 million defamation judgment entered against it by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.
The ruling, delivered on May 5, 2026 by Justice Yusuf Halilu, was in favour of two Department of State Services (DSS) officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, who claimed they were defamed.
SERAP confirmed in a statement by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, that it has filed a notice of appeal and also applied for a stay of execution of the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal. The appeal was filed by senior advocate Tayo Oyetibo, SAN.
The trial court had awarded ₦100 million in damages against SERAP, alongside orders for public apologies, ₦1 million in costs, and a 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest until full payment is made.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, SERAP described it as “a travesty and miscarriage of justice,” insisting that the decision was flawed in law and procedure.
In its grounds of appeal, the organisation argued that the court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement it claimed was not properly sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths.
SERAP further contended that the court wrongly held that the alleged defamatory words referred personally to the DSS officials, arguing that the proper legal standard for identification in defamation cases was not applied.
It cited Supreme Court authorities, including Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd and Abalaka v. Akinsete, stating that defamation must be assessed based on whether reasonable members of the public would identify the claimant, not internal institutional perception.
The organisation also faulted the court for relying on subjective interpretations from DSS personnel rather than an objective legal test.
SERAP maintained that the court failed to properly consider its defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege, insisting that its publications were truthful and made in the public interest.
It further argued that the DSS officials failed to establish any actual reputational damage, financial loss, or measurable harm resulting from the statements.
According to SERAP, the claim was also not maintainable because the DSS is a large institution and the alleged statements did not specifically or uniquely identify the claimants. It therefore challenged both the standing of the plaintiffs and the jurisdiction of the court.
The group has asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire judgment and dismiss the case for lacking merit.
Meanwhile, in its application for a stay of execution, SERAP warned that enforcing the ruling would disrupt its operations and hinder ongoing human rights and accountability work across the country.
It argued that thousands of Nigerians who rely on its advocacy, legal support, and investigations would be affected if its operations were halted.
SERAP also maintained that immediate enforcement would undermine its constitutional right of appeal and limit its ability to properly pursue the case at the appellate court.
The organisation insisted that the balance of convenience favours granting a stay, reiterating its commitment to continue the legal process in line with the rule of law while defending civic space and public interest advocacy in Nigeria.
