What began as a defamation suit between officials of the Department of State Services, DSS, and Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, is fast developing into a major legal confrontation and test on law of defamation over free expression, judicial procedure and the shrinking space for civic advocacy in Nigeria.
Days after the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, awarded ₦100 million damages against SERAP in favour of DSS officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, the anti-corruption and accountability organisation has approached the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the judgment in its entirety.
In the appeal filed by senior advocate, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP argues that the judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu on May 5, 2026 was fundamentally flawed both in law and procedure, insisting that the decision cannot stand because it allegedly rested on defective processes, inadmissible evidence and a misapplication of settled principles of defamation law.
The organisation is also seeking a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal, warning that enforcement of the judgment could cripple its operations and undermine ongoing public interest litigation and human rights interventions.
The case itself arose from publications made by SERAP following what it described as an unannounced visit by DSS operatives to its office — a visit the organisation said created apprehension among its staff after the officers allegedly refused to properly identify themselves.
Justice Halilu, however, held that the publications defamed the DSS officials and consequently ordered SERAP to pay ₦100 million damages, publish public apologies, pay ₦1 million as cost of litigation and continue to incur 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest until the damages are fully liquidated.
But in its appeal, SERAP is attacking virtually every pillar and structure upon which the judgment rests.
SERAP’s Concern on Jurisdiction:
One of the strongest grounds of appeal raised by the appelant relates to the legal competence of the suit itself. The organisation believes and leagues that jurisdiction issue goes to the root of every case in court, be it criminal and civil litigation.
According to SERAP, the DSS officials initially sued “Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project,” which the organisation argues is not a juristic person recognised by law. The claimants later amended the originating process to substitute “The Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project.”
SERAP maintains that the trial court fell into serious legal error by permitting the amendment.
The organisation argues that an action commenced against a non-juristic entity is fundamentally incompetent and cannot be salvaged through amendment because the defect goes to the root of jurisdiction.
In Nigerian law, courts have consistently drawn a distinction between correcting a mere misnomer and substituting an entirely different legal entity.
SERAP’s position is that the latter occurred in this case.
Put simply, the organisation contends that one cannot amend nothing into something.
That argument may become central before the appellate court because jurisdiction remains the foundation of adjudication. Once jurisdiction is absent, every step taken in the proceedings, no matter how beautiful and well conducted, becomes void.
Legal observers say if the Court of Appeal agrees that the original suit was incompetent from inception, the entire judgment may collapse without the court needing to examine the substantive defamation claims.
A Lagos based legal practitioner, Mr Andrew Leigh states that the Court of Appeal would first listen and wanted to be addressed on issue of jurisdiction. “I can state and assure you that if the appellate court found fault and establish the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the Appellant, definitely, there is no reason to go further.” He stated.
Personality Identification and the Law of Defamation:
SERAP is also challenging the court’s finding that the allegedly defamatory statements referred personally to the DSS officials. The body believes that libel is bound to establish that the libel statement or words attacks the fame of the person claiming to be libelled.
The organisation argues that the publications neither mentioned the claimants by name nor contained photographs, ranks or specific identifiers capable of linking the statements directly to them.
Instead, SERAP says the trial court improperly relied on the understanding of DSS personnel and colleagues within the agency rather than applying the objective test long established in defamation law.
Supporting its argument, SERAP legal team cited the Supreme Court authorities including-Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd and Abalaka v. Akinsete.
SERAP argues that the proper legal question ought to have been whether ordinary, right-thinking members of the public would reasonably understand the words to refer to the claimants.
According to the appeal, the court substituted that objective standard with what amounted to institutional perception within the DSS.
SERAP further points to admissions allegedly made by the claimants under cross-examination. One of the officials reportedly admitted she was not the only tall, dark-skinned and large female officer within the DSS, while the other acknowledged he was not the only slim, dark-skinned male officer in the agency.
To SERAP, those admissions significantly weakened the claim that the publications could uniquely identify the claimants.
The organisation also insists that even the pre-action correspondence from the DSS suggested the publications were understood as referring to the agency itself rather than the individual officers who eventually instituted the suit.
That distinction may prove legally significant because defamation law generally does not permit individual members of a large institution to maintain personal actions unless the publication clearly singles them out.
Issues on Witnesses Deposition:
Another major issue likely to attract close scrutiny at the Court of Appeal concerns the admissibility of one of the witness statements relied upon by the trial court.
SERAP submits that the first claimant admitted during cross-examination that her witness statement on oath was signed in her lawyer’s chambers and not before a Commissioner for Oaths as required by law.
Under Nigerian procedural rules, witness depositions must be sworn before an authorised officer. Courts have repeatedly held that failure to comply with that requirement may render the deposition incompetent.
SERAP contends that despite the admission, the court failed to strike out the deposition and still relied on it in reaching its decision.
The organisation describes that failure as a substantial procedural defect that goes to the root of the proceedings.
For appellate judges, the question may ultimately be whether the trial court’s reliance on the disputed deposition occasioned a miscarriage of justice substantial enough to vitiate the judgment.
Public Interest Defence:
Beyond procedural objections, the appeal also raises broader constitutional questions concerning freedom of expression and public interest advocacy.
SERAP argues that its publications were substantially true and protected by the legal defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.
According to the organisation, there was evidence before the court that DSS operatives visited its office unannounced, concealed their identities and allegedly used a false name during the encounter.
SERAP maintains that informing the public about such conduct fell squarely within legitimate civic advocacy and public accountability.
The organisation further argues that the court failed to accord sufficient protection to commentary on matters involving state security agencies and issues of public concern.
Lawyers familiar with media and defamation litigation say this aspect of the appeal could have implications beyond the parties directly involved in the case.
There is growing concern among civil society organisations that large defamation awards may increasingly be used to discourage scrutiny of powerful institutions and chill critical reporting or advocacy.
For many observers, the case now sits at the intersection of reputational rights and democratic accountability.
Questions Over the ₦100 Million Award:
SERAP is equally contesting the scale and basis of the damages awarded by the court.
The organisation argues that the DSS officials failed to produce evidence showing actual reputational injury, financial loss, disciplinary consequences or professional setbacks arising from the publications.
It also argues that no independent member of the public testified that the publications lowered the claimants’ reputations in the eyes of society.
Instead, SERAP says the case rested almost entirely on internal DSS interpretation of the statements.
While Nigerian courts retain wide discretion in awarding damages for libel, appellate courts have in several cases intervened where awards appeared excessive or unsupported by evidence.
The ₦100 million judgment has already generated significant debate within legal and civic circles, particularly because of the potential impact such awards may have on non-governmental organisations engaged in public interest work.
Assumed Wider Implications for Civic Space:
In its application for stay of execution, SERAP warns that immediate enforcement of the judgment could severely disrupt its operations and jeopardise ongoing programmes, investigations and advocacy initiatives.
The organisation says thousands of individuals and communities benefit from its interventions, including victims of human rights abuses and citizens seeking governmental accountability.
But beyond the immediate parties, the appeal is now shaping into a wider test case about how Nigerian courts balance reputational interests against civic criticism directed at state institutions.
At stake are deeper constitutional questions surrounding freedom of expression, fair hearing, access to justice and the role of civil society within a democratic system.
For now, the High Court judgment remains valid and enforceable unless stayed by the appellate court. But with the breadth of issues now raised on appeal — from jurisdiction to defective evidence and the scope of public interest protection — the case appears far from over.
And depending on how the Court of Appeal eventually resolves those questions, the final outcome could leave a lasting imprint on Nigeria’s defamation jurisprudence and the future of civic advocacy.
