A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High court, on Thursday, adjourned for judgement on a date that would be communicated to parties, in respect of the defamation suit instituted against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice Yusuf Halilu adjourned for judgement after the adoption of addresses by counsel to the claimants and defendants.
The two operatives, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, had sued SERAP for N5 billion for alleged defamation following SERAP’s accusation that the DSS invaded its Abuja office in 2024.
At the adoption of written addresses today, February 19, counsel to SERAP, Victoria Bassey, from Tayo Oyetibo, SAN Chambers, urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
According to Ms Bassey, the suit was misconceived because the claimants did not establish that the words complained of, concerned them personally.
In the written address, the defendant’s counsel posited:
”The law is firmly settled that in an action for defamation, the burden lies squarely on the claimant to prove, as a threshold and indispensable requirement that the words complained of were published of, were published of and concerning him personally. This requirement is not cosmetic as it goes to the very root of the cause of action and failure to establish it is fatal.
“It is common ground that none of the publications complained of, mentioned the claimants by name, rank, photograph or office. They referred generically to ‘officers from Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS)’ and complained of the conduct of the DSS as an institution”.
According to the counsel, the claimants have not established that the complaints of SERAP referred to them, adding that “there is no evidence whatsoever that a right-thinking individual reasonably understood the words complained of to refer to either claimants personally”.
In his adoption of address, counsel to the claimants, Oluwagbemileke Kehinde, urged the court to grant all the reliefs of the claimants, urging the court to discountenance the defendants’ defence, describing them as incompetent.
